ffl.f 


I     RECI 1 A  1 1UJN  AS  A  FACTOR  IN 
L  B  MEMORIZING 

/  063 

?  BY 

IHJ^.M^  ARTHUR  I.  GATES,  M.  A. 

Submitted  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements  for 

the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy,  in  the  Faculty 

of  Philosophy,  Columbia  University 


REPRINTED  FROM 

ARCHIVES  OF  PSYCHOLOGY 
No.  40 


NEW  YORK 
1917 


EXCHANGE 


RECITATION  AS  A  FACTOR  IN 
MEMORIZING 


RECITATION  AS  A  FACTOR  IN 
MEMORIZING 


BY 

ARTHUR  I.  GATES,  M.  A. 

ii 

Submitted  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements  for 

the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy,  in  the  Faculty 

of  Philosophy,  Columbia  University 


REPRINTED  FROM 

ARCHIVES  OF  PSYCHOLOGY 

No.  40 


NEW  YORK 
1917 


UNIVERSITY  PRINTING  OFFICE 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


TABLE  OF   CONTENTS 

Chapter  Page 

I.    Introductory  statement  of  the  problem I 

II.    Summary  of  previous  studies  on  the  problem     ...  4 

III.  The  subjects,  materials,  and  methods  of  procedure       .  24 

IV.  Quantitative  results 35 

V.    An  analysis  of  reading  and  recitation  as 

factors  in  learning 65 

VI.    Conclusions  and  pedagogical  implications     ....  99 


G 


PREFACE 

The  present  investigation  was  begun  in  the  Psychological  Labo- 
ratory of  the  University  of  California  in  the  spring  of  1916.  The 
experiments  in  which  children  served  as  subjects  were  conducted  in 
a  public  school  in  Oakland,  California,  while  those  upon  adults 
were,  for  the  most  part,  carried  out  in  the  Psychological  Laboratory 
of  Columbia  University. 

The  writer  has  been  fortunate  in  having  enjoyed,  during  the 
course  of  the  work,  endless  encouragement,  suggestions,  and  assis- 
tance from  a  large  number  of  people.  To  Mr.  N.  Ricciardi,  Prin- 
cipal of  the  school  visited,  I  am  indebted  for  the  privilege  of  con- 
ducting the  experiments  upon  his  charges  as  well  as  for  the  ready 
help  in  arranging  details  for  the  work.  To  the  many  teachers  whose 
class-rooms  I  invaded,  I  am  indebted  for  the  kindliest  toleration  and 
for  a  great  deal  of  valuable  assistance.  My  debt  of  gratitude  to 
Professors  G.  M.  Stratton  and  Warner  Brown  of  the  University  of 
California  and  to  Professors  J.  McKeen  Cattell,  R.  S.  Woodworth, 
E.  L.  Thorndike,  H.  L.  Hollingworth,  and  Dr.  A.  T.  Poffenberger  of 
Columbia  University,  is  very  great.  To  my  friend  Charles  E. 
Martin,  I  am  indebted  for  valuable  suggestions  and  criticisms  in  the 
preparation  of  the  manuscript. 


INTRODUCTORY  STATEMENT   OF  THE   PROBLEM 

The  process  of  learning  as  carried  on  by  most  adults  depending 
upon  their  native  resources  or  practical  experience,  is  frequently 
interrupted  by  attempts  at  recitation  or  voluntary  recall  of  what 
has  been  learned.  We  tend  to  introduce  an  attempt  at  recitation  at 
the  earliest  possible  moment,  usually  long  before  a  perfect  repro- 
duction is  possible.  In  that  case,  as  a  rule,  we  refer  promptly  to  the 
material  being  studied  in  order  to  complete  the  perusal.  For 
example,  many  years  ago  Francis  Bacon  observed,  ''If  you  read  any- 
thing over  twenty  times  you  will  not  learn  it  by  heart  so  easily  as 
if  you  were  to  read  it  only  ten,  trying  to  repeat  it  between  whiles, 
and  when  memory  failed  looking  at  the  book."  l  The  spontaneous 
methods  of  learning  of  many  people  resort  so  naturally  to  these 
attempted  reproductions  that  we  can  hardly  refuse  to  believe  that 
they  are  helpful.  Yet  most  of  us  would  admit  that  the  dominating 
idea  behind  such  a  procedure  is  the  fear  of  studying  the  lesson  more 
than  is  absolutely  necessary,  and  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  intro- 
ducing the  recitation  too  early  in  the  learning  process  may  not 
result  in  loss  of  time.  This  gives  rise  to  several  practical  questions, 
such  as: — Is  an  attempted  recitation  of  as  much  value  in  learning 
as  another  perusal  or  reading,  and  is  a  recitation  at  one  stage  of  the 
learning  as  valuable  as  at  another? 

It  is  at  once  obvious  that  the  solution  of  such  questions  is  of 
tremendous  import  for  the  work  of  the  school.  It  is  imperative  that 
recall  or  recitation,  as  a  factor  in  learning,  should  be  analysed  and 
its  quantitative  importance  determined.  Although  several  studies 
of  the  problem  have  been  made  within  the  last  decade,  facts  that 
will  permit  indisputable  application  to  the  work  of  the  school-room 
are  still  wanting.  The  amount  of  experimentation  required  to  solve 
the  problem  adequately  is  much  greater  than  would  at  first  thought 
appear,  since  different  results  might  be  expected  according  to  the 
age  and  training  of  the  subject,  the  kind  of  material  employed,  the 
length  of  the  lesson  or  the  purpose  of  the  learner,  i.  e.,  whether  the 
material  is  to  be  'learned  by  heart'  or  only  partly  learned.  The 
general  condition  of  the  problem  is  indicated  by  a  recent  statement 
of  Meumann,  who,  after  summarizing  the  work  in  the  field,  con- 

1  Navum  Organum,  1620.  translated  by  James  Spedding,  edition  of  1863,  p.  229. 


2  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

eluded  i/iat*  "it  is  indispensable  that  such  experiments  be  repeated 
and  confirmed  before  the  results  are  applied  to  pedagogy." 

That  great  variations  in  the  methods  of  learning  exist  even  among 
adults  with  college  training  will  be  surprisingly  evident  to  anyone 
who  will  select  at  random  twenty  such  individuals  and  carefully 
observe  the  means  employed  in  learning  a  stanza  of  poetry  or  a 
series  of  nonsense  syllables.  Many  cases  of  alleged  'poor  memories' 
may  prove  to  be  due  to  poor  methods  of  study.  One  would  even 
more  confidently  expect  to  find  among  children  a  greater  number  of 
ineffective  methods  of  studying.  In  fact  Miss  M.  J.  Baldwin  made 
a  study  of  this  matter3  and  found  that  such  was  the  case.  She 
undertook,  by  means  of  questionnaires  and  observations  of  pupils  in 
Grammar  and  High  School,  to  determine  the  methods  of  study  as 
well  as  the  methods  employed  in  testing  their  attainment.  The 
methods  of  study,  as  one  might  expect,  were  various.  Some  em- 
ployed one  kind  or  another  of  attempted  recall,  such  as  trying  to 
say  or  write  the  main  ideas,  but  more  than  one-fourth  simply  read 
the  lesson  through  time  after  time.  In  some  classes  from  fifty  to 
sixty  per  cent,  of  the  pupils  came  to  the  recitation  without  having 
once  attempted  to  test  their  mastery  of  the  lesson  in  any  definite 
way. 

Manifestly,  when  so  many  of  our  years  are  to  be  spent  in  studying, 
it  is  imperative  that  some  information  concerning  such  broad  func- 
tions as  reading  and  recitation  as  factors  in  learning  should  be 
obtained  and  applied.  While  volumes  have  been  written  on  methods 
of  study  and  on  the  economy  of  learning,  so  far  as  children  are 
concerned,  no  objective  data  are  available  demonstrating  the  rela- 
tive value  of  these  two  functions  which  are  fundamental  in  any 
attempt  to  learn.  Earlier  investigators  have  found  in  the  case  of 
many  adults  that  the  optimum  combination  of  recitation  and  read- 
ing may  lead  to  the  mastery  of  a  given  lesson  in  one-half  the  time 
required  to  learn  it  by  reading  alone.  If  such  findings  should  hold 
for  children,  and  if  it  is  generally  true,  as  Miss  Baldwin  found,  that 
twenty-five  per  cent,  or  more  of  the  pupils  in  the  schools  rely 
entirely  upon  reading  in  their  learning,  the  loss  of  time  and  energy 
is  appalling. 

The  present  study  presents  the  results  of  an  effort  to  answer  a 
practical  problem  of  the  school-room — namely,  What  are  the  relative 
values  of  learning  by  reading  as  compared  to  learning  by  recitation  in 
the  case  of  school  children  working  under  school  conditions  and  with 
the  ordinary  school-room  methods  of  attack?  It  will  be  seen  later 
that  all  the  previous  work  on  this  subject  has  employed  adults  as 

2  Vorlesungen  zur  Einfuhrung  in  die  experimentelle  Pddagogik,  vol.  Ill,  1914,  p.  130. 

3  'Studies  in  Development  and  Learning',  Archives  of  Psychology,  1909,  No.  12,  pp.  65-70. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  3 

subjects.  But  as  Meumann  has  said,4  "We  do  not  know  whether 
recitation  is  of  the  same  value  for  children,  nor  whether  the  com- 
bination of  readings  and  recitations  for  optimum  results  is  the  same 
as  for  adults."  In  most  cases,  moreover,  the  earlier  researches  were 
conducted  under  rather  rigorously  controlled  conditions.  The 
subjects  were  not  permitted  to  study  in  their  habitual  manner; 
sometimes  the  material  was  presented  tachistoscopically  with  a 
fixed  tempo  of  presentation,  sometimes  articulation  was  prohibited 
or  other  restrictions  enforced.  In  the  present  work,  so  far  as 
practicable,  conditions  were  made  as  nearly  normal  as  possible. 
The  material  selected  is  comparable  to  that  with  which  the  pupils 
were  accustomed  to  deal  in  their  daily  work.  The  children  studied 
in  much  the  same  manner  that  they  would  employ  in  learning  a 
vocabulary,  a  spelling  lesson,  or  a  history  or  geography  lesson,  with 
the  knowledge  that  at  the  end  of  the  study  period  they  would  be 
given  a  written  examination.  Details  of  material  and  methods, 
however,  will  be  reserved  for  a  later  page. 

In  addition  to  the  experiments  upon  school  children,  adult 
subjects  were  also  tested  with  similar  materials  and  methods.  The 
data  thus  obtained  will  make  possible  a  more  adequate  comparison 
of  the  present  findings  with  those  of  other  investigations  and  will 
be  of  assistance  in  better  interpretation  of  the  results  by  virtue  of 
the  more  reliable  introspective  observations  which  would  be  ex- 
pected from  the  more  experienced  learners. 

From  this  study  it  is  hoped  that  some  information  will  be  secured 
on  the  following  points: 

1.  The  relative  value  of  learning  by  reading  as  compared  to  learning  by 
recitation. 

2.  The  differences  in  the  functions  involved  in  the  two  methods  of  learning. 

3.  The  optimum  time  at  which  to  introduce  recitation  into  the  learning 
process. 

4.  The  relation  of  the  two  methods  of  learning  as  dependent  upon  the  age  or 
school  status  of  the  learner. 

5.  The  relation  of  the  two  methods  as  dependent  upon  the  kind  of  material 
employed. 

6.  Incidental  information  concerning  the  learning  methods  of  children  and 
adults. 

In  the  next  section  a  brief  summary  of  the  work  previously  done 
on  the  problem  will  be  presented. 

*  Op.  cit.,  vol.  Ill,  p.  130. 


II 

SUMMARY  OF  PREVIOUS  STUDIES  ON  THE   PROBLEM 

In  1908  M.  Dimitre  Katzaroff  made  a  direct  attempt1  to  obtain 
evidence  upon  the  relative  value  of  reading  as  compared  to  recita- 
tion as  factors  in  the  learning  process.  Series  of  eight  or  ten  pairs 
of  nonsense  syllables  were  presented  serially  on  a  drum  which  re- 
volved so  as  to  expose  each  pair  for  two  seconds.  A  four-second 
pause  was  made  between  perusals.  Adult  subjects  were  employed 
exclusively,  each  learning  three  or  four  series  at  each  sitting,  a  rest 
of  five  minutes  being  given  between  series.  After  a  certain  number 
of  readings  attempts  were  made  at  recall  by  exposing  the  first  word 
of  each  pair  and  calling  for  the  second  word.  Each  syllable  was  left 
in  view  for  twenty  seconds  unless  its  associate  was  recalled  earlier, 
and  in  cases  of  failure  to  recall  the  learner  was  prompted  orally. 
Various  combinations  of  study  and  recitation  were  tried  as  may  be 
seen  from  Table  I. 

The  test  of  memory  was  made  by  the  'Treffer'  method,  the 
original  first  members,  however,  being  exposed  in  a  new  order  after 
intervals  of  twenty-four,  forty-eight,  or  seventy-two  hours.  The 
time  required  for  each  response  was  measured  by  a  Muensterberg 
chronoscope.  Table  I  gives  a  summary  of  the  results. 

The  general  result  of  these  experiments  is  that  recitation,  after  a 
certain  number  of  original  readings,  is  more  valuable  than  additional 
readings.  In  most  cases,  the  advantage  of  recitation  is  very  great, 
measured  by  the  amount  correctly  recalled,  and  usually  the  reaction 
time  is  less.  Tables  D  and  E  also  show  quite  conclusively  that 
•recitations  grouped  are  more  effective  than  recitations  interspersed 
with  readings. 

The  greater  effectiveness  of  recitation  is  explained  by  Katzaroff 
as  being  due  in  the  main :  First,  to  a  greater  control  over  the  condi- 
tions of  learning.  Second,  to  a  greater  activity  of  the  learner  during 
recitation,  ''in  the  readings,  the  subject  is  passive,  calm,  indifferent; 
in  recitations  he  is  active,  he  has  to  seek,  he  rejoices  when  he  has 
found  and  is  irritated  at  the  syllables  which  evade  his  call."2  Third, 
to  a  greater  confidence  with  reference  to  the  material  learned  which 
is  brought  about  by  recitation. 

1  'Le  Role  de  la  recitation  comme  facteur  de  la  memorisation',  Archives  de  -psychologic,  1908,  7 
pp.1224-250. 

2  Op,  cit.,  p.  257. 


RECITATION   AS    A    FACTOR    IX    MEMORIZING 


For  several  reasons,  it  would  be  unsafe  to  consider  Katzaroff  s 
findings  as  typical.  In  the  first  place  the  results  were  obtained  from 
too  few  and  highly  trained  adults.  Individual  peculiarities  may 
play  too  prominent  a  rdle.  Moreover,  practice  effects  were  not 
sufficiently  taken  into  account,  and  finally  the  mode  of  presenta- 
tion was  not  the  same  in  the  two  methods.  During  the  perusals  by 
reading  the  total  presentation  was  visual,  but  during  recitation  oral 

TABLE  I 

Showing  a  summary  of  results  obtained  by  Kaizaroff,  op.  cit. 


Table 

Number 
of  subjects 

Number 
of  sittings 
for  each 

'Combination 
L  reading 
R  recitation 

Test  after 
number 
hours 

Per  cent, 
correct 

Reaction 
time  in 
seconds 

A 

I 

4 

L  10  R  LS 

48 

43 

5-6 

L  10  R  RS 

50 

4.o 

B 

3 

4 

L8  L7 

72 

6 

8.0 

L8  Rj 

20 

6-7 

C 

2 

4 

L8  L7 

72 

9    * 

7-8 

L8  R  L6 

15 

8.6 

D 

I 

3 

L4  L6 

24 

17 

5-0 

L4  R6 

46 

2-9 

L4  RL  RL  RL 

25 

4-5 

E 

I 

3 

L4  L6 

24 

4 

2.9 

L4  R3  L3 

62 

3-i 

L4  RL  RL  RL 

54 

2-9 

presentation  was  added  to  the  visual,  since  the  prompts  were  made 
by  means  of  the  experimenter's  voice. 

A  more  recent  experiment  by  Thorndike4  has  given  very  different 
results.  Twenty-eight  adult  students  learned  four  vocabularies  of 
twenty  pairs  each,  the  second  by  attentive  reading  and  rereading, 
the  first  by  reading  the  first  members  and  trying  to  recall  the  second 
members  of  the  pairs.  The  third  vocabulary  was  learned  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  second,  and  the  fourth  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  first.  The  results  are  given  in  Table  II. 

There  is  no  apparent  superiority  in  the  method  involving  recall ; 
in  fact,  the  method  of  reading  and  rereading  seems  to  give  slightly 
better  results.  Professor  Thorndike  explains  that  "This,  however, 
was  partly  due  to  the  overlearning  of  the  first  vocabulary,  there 

3  For  the  sake  of  brevity,  let  L  equal  reading  and  R  equal  an  attempted  recitation.    Thus  Lio 
R5  means  ten  original  readings  followed  by  five  attempted  recitations. 

4  'Repetitions  versus  Recall  in  Memorizing  Vocabularies',  Journal  of  Educational  Psychology, 
1914,  5,  pp.  596-597. 


6  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

being  a  tendency  to  take  profitable  risks  in  the  vocabularies  after 
the  first."  And  moreover,  "The  experiment  was  too  crude  and  too 
slight  to  give  numerical  results  worth  presenting  in  detail." 

A  more  extensive  study  has  recently  been  reported    by  Alexander 
Kiihn.5    Three  kinds  of  material  were  employed:   vertical  rows  of 


TABLE  II 


Recall 

Reading 

Reading 

Recall 

Time 
(seconds) 

Number 
correct 

Time 
(seconds) 

Number 
correct 

Time 

(seconds) 

Number 
correct 

Time 
(seconds) 

Number 
correct 

18.6 

13-9 

16.1 

16.9 

15-8 

15-7 

14-7 

14.6 

twelve  nonsense  syllables,  vertical  rows  of  twelve  one-syllable  sub- 
stantives, and  short  verses.  Two  methods  of  studying  were  em- 
ployed, one  in  which  the  learner  read  and  reread  until  he  was 
confident  of  his  mastery  of  the  material  and  another  in  which  the 
subject  was  permitted  to  employ  recitation  as  soon  as  he  desired. 

TABLE  III 


Material 

Method  of 
learning  6 

Tempo  Controlled 

Tempo  Free 

Number  of 
repetitions 

Time 

Number  of 
repetitions 

Time 

Average 

Median 

Average 

Median 

Average 

Median 

Average 

Median 

Verses 
190  tests 
6  subjects 

R 
L 
L-R 

7-5 
8.8 

1-3 

7-3 
8.8 

1-5 

2'26" 
17" 

2  '06" 
2'25" 
19" 

6-5 

8.2 

6.4 
8.2 

1.8 

2'I9* 

28" 

i  '49" 
26" 

Words 
132  tests 
9  subjects 

R 
L 
L-R 

15-3 
20.8 

5-5 

14.6 
20.4 

5-8 

2'35" 

3'24" 
49" 

2'3i" 

3'2I" 
50" 

*II  .2 

18.8 
7-6 

10.9 

18.7 
7-8 

2'04" 
2  '59" 

55" 

2'OI  * 

2'58" 
57" 

Syllables 
132  tests 
9  subjects 

R 
L 
L-R 

22.7 
36.6 
13  9 

22.7 

36.7 
14.0 

3'56" 
6'o6" 

2'IO" 

3'56" 
6'o9" 

2'I3" 

18.1 
31-8 
13-7 

17.7 

31-7 
14.0 

3'33" 
5'22" 
i  '49" 

3'38" 
5'i7" 
i  '49" 

In  some  experiments  the  tempo  of  presentation  was  controlled  by 
means  of  a  metronome,  the  subjects  being  required  to  repeat  a  word 
or  a  nonsense  syllable  each  0.65  of  a  second,  while  in  the  case  of 
poetry  a  syllable  was  repeated  each  0.4  second.  In  other  tests,  the 
subjects  studied  in  their  preferred  tempo.  In  all  cases,  simultane- 

5 'Uber  Einpragung  durch  Lesen  und  durch  Rezitieren',  Zeitschrift  fur  Psychologic,  1914,  68,  pp. 
396-481. 

8  R — recitation,  L — reading.    Sum  of  tests  for  all  subjects. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  7 

ous  visual  presentaton  was  employed,  the  subjects  prompting 
themselves  and  correcting  their  own  errors.  For  the  learning  of 
syllables  and  words,  trochaic  rhythm  was  specified.  The  subjects 
were  university  graduates  and  instructors.  Each  subject  learned 
a  dozen  or  more  lessons  by  each  of  the  two  methods.  Table  III 
gives  a  summary  of  the  results. 

Table  IV  gives  the  relation  of  reading  minus  recitation  to  recita- 
tion, computed  from  the  data  of  Table  III. 

TABLE  IV 

The  Relation  of  Reading  minus  Recitation  to  Recitation 


Material 

Tempo  controlled 

Tempo  free 

Repetitions 

Time 

Repetitions 

Time 

Average 

Median 

Average 

Median 

Average 

Median 

Average 

Median 

Verses 
Words 
Syllables 

0.17 
0.36 

0.61 

O.2O 
0.40 
O.62 

0.13 
0.31 

0-55 

0.15 
0-33 
0.56 

0.26 
0.68 
0.76 

0.28 
0.71 
0.79 

0.25 
0.44 
0-51 

0.24 
0.47 
0.52 

The  general  result  is  that  for  all  materials  recitation  is  a  more 
effective  method  of  learning  than  reading  only.  Rather  striking 
individual  differences,  however,  were  found,  ranging  all  the  way 
from  certain  subjects  who  required  more  than  twice  as  long  to  learn 
a  series  of  nonsense  syllables  when  no  recitation  was  permitted,  to 
others  (in  all  three  subjects  out  of  thirteen)  for  whom  reading  was 
an  equally  or  even  more  effective  method  of  learning  than  recita- 
tion. The  latter  are  representative  of  a  peculiar  type  of  mechanical 
learners  to  whom  we  shall  refer  again.  On  the  whole,  however,  the 
advantage  of  recitation,  is  clear. 

It  appears  that  the  advantage  of  recitation  differs  considerably 
according  to  the  kind  of  material  being  studied ;  the  more  senseless 
and  less  connected  the  material,  the  greater  the  advantage  of 
recitation  over  reading.  Thus,  Table  IV  shows  the  superiority  of 
recitation  to  be  rather  small  in  the  learning  of  verses,  about  twice 
as  great  for  learning  series  of  words,  and  larger  still  for  learning  non- 
sense syllables.  The  advantage  of  recitation  also  differs  according 
to  the  method  of  studying  that  is  employed,  being  in  all  cases 
greater  when  the  learner  is  left  to  employ  his  own  tempo  than  when 
the  tempo  is  controlled  by  the  experimenter.  It  was  found  also 
that  in  the  reading  method  the  subjects  were  unable  to  judge  so 
well  when  the  material  was  mastered  and  often  'made  too  early  an 
attempt  to  recite'.  In  general,  it  was  found  that  the  controlled 
tempo  hampered  the  learning  to  a  greater  or  less  extent. 


8 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


After  a  lapse  of  twenty-four,  forty-eight,  and  ninety-six  hours, 
the  material  was  relearned,  the  same  methods  being  employed  that 
were  used  in  the  original  learning.  Table  V  shows  the  average 
results  for  six  subjects. 

TABLE  V 

After  twenty-four  hours.     Total  number  of  tests — 84 


Method 

Tempo  controlled 

Tempo  free 

Repetitions 

Time 

Repetitions 

Time 

Average 

Median 

Average 

Median 

Average 

Median 

Average 

Median 

R 
L 

L-R 

4-1 
5-0 
0.9 

4.0 
5-0 
I  .0 

I  '06  * 
l'2l" 
15" 

I  '05" 
I  '20" 
15" 

3-8 
4.6 
0.8 

3-8 
4.6 
0.8 

I  'OO  " 
l'l2" 
12" 

o'58" 
I'M* 

I4" 

After  forty-eight  hours.     Total  number  of  tests — 68 


R 

3-9 

3-8 

i  '03" 

i  '02" 

3-7 

3-7 

o'57" 

o'55" 

L 

4-5 

4-4 

i'i4" 

i  '13" 

4-5 

4-3 

l'l2" 

I'I2" 

L-R 

0.6 

0.6 

ii  " 

ii  " 

0.8 

0.6 

15" 

17" 

After  ninety-six  hours.     Total  number  of  tests — 38 


R 

3-8 

3-9 

i  '03" 

I  '02  " 

3-3 

3-3 

o'53" 

o'52" 

L 

4.8 

4-9 

l'2l" 

I  '20  " 

4-4 

4-6 

I'I2" 

i'i5" 

L-R 

I  .0 

I  .0 

18" 

18" 

i  .  i 

i-3 

19" 

23" 

The  results  indicate  the  superiority  of  recitation  as  a  factor  in 
relearning  but  do  not  show  that  the  material  learned  by  the  recita- 
tion method  is  better  retained  than  the  material  memorized  by 
reading  alone.  In  the  case  of  a  few  individuals,  tests  were  made 
after  various  intervals  by  the  'Treffer'  method.  From  the  data 
given  by  Ktthn  (p.  463)  the  following  averages  for  ten  subjects  have 
been  computed: 

TABLE  VI 

Per  cent,  of  material  recalled  after  an  interval  of  from  five 
to  ten  minutes.     Test  by  'TrefferJ  method 


Method  of 

Lists  of  words 

Lists  of  syllables 

learning 

Tempo  controlled 

Tempo  free 

Tempo  controlled 

Tempo  free 

R 

66.8 

72.3 

36.4 

32.6 

L 

59-3 

56-7 

25-4 

22.7 

L-R 

7-5 

I5.6 

II  .0 

9-9 

RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  9 

It  is  apparent  that  the  material  learned  by  recitation  is  better 
retained.  In  the  case  of  words,  material  learned  by  means  of  a 
fixed  tempo  is  not  so  well  retained  as  material  learned  by  a  free 
tempo,  but  this  result  is  not  clear  for  nonsense  material,  for  which 
the  opposite,  if  anything,  is  true. 

Three  subjects  were  each  given  twelve  tests  by  the  'Treffer' 
method  first  after  ten  minutes  and  again  with  other  material  after 
twenty-four  hours.  The  results  are  given  below. 

TABLE  VII 

Per  cent,  of  material  recalled  after  ten-minute  or  twenty-four-hour  lapses 
Studying  done  with  free  tempo 


After  ten  minutes 

After  twenty-four  hours 

Reading 
Recitation 

33-5 
44.1 

Reading 
Recitation 

6.2 

If  .9 

From  this  data,  Kiihn  concludes  "the  advantage  of  learning  with 
recitation  for  retention  is  much  greater  after  a  pause  of  a  day  than 
after  a  pause  of  a  few  minutes."  7 

Kiihn  found  a  great  deal  of  interesting  information  concerning 
individual  peculiarities  in  learning.  Many  individuals  had  a  con- 
stant tendency  to  begin  to  recite  too  soon,  or  too  late,  for  the  best 
results;  some  were  unable  to  limit  themselves  to  'pure'  reading, 
more  or  less  recitation  unintentionally  creeping  in;  some  subjects 
were  found  who  seemed  to  derive  no  benefit  whatever  from  con- 
tinued readings  beyond  a  maximum  of  four  or  five;  and  others 
obtained  better  results  under  the  reading  method  than  when 
recitation  was  a  factor.  Ktihn  found  the  latter  subjects  to  employ 
a  peculiar  form  of  'automatic'  or  'mechanical'  method  of  learning, 
in  which  the  usual  method  of  building  up  associations  between 
items  and  binding  them  into  some  form  of  compact  'schema'  or 
structure  was  not  employed.  Simple  visual  imprinting,  was  the 
most  effective  procedure. 

Kiihn  came  to  the  general  conclusion,  "that  recitation  is  more 
effective  because  it  leads  to  a  more  fundamental,  many-sided  work- 
ing over  of  the  material"  (p.  443).  In  recitation  the  items  are  more 
attentively  observed,  the  list  is  more  carefully  analysed,  striking 
words  are  picked  out,  and  a  better  'schema'  of  reconstruction  is 
employed.  In  the  case  of  those  individuals  who  rely  upon  the 
various  sorts  of  associative  aids  in  learning,  recitation  is  very 
helpful,  but  the  few  who  learn  mechanically  can  do  as  well  or  better 
by  merely  reading. 

7  Op.  cit.,  p.  466. 


10 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


So  far  no  information  has  been  cited  with  regard  to  the  stage  at 
which  it  is  best  to  introduce  the  first  recitation.  This  question  was 
taken  up  and  answered,  in  a  measure,  by  Witasek.8  Rows  of  ten 
pairs  of  nonsense  syllables  were  exposed  successively  at  the  rate  of 
one  per  second  by  means  of  a  Wirth  memory  apparatus.  The 
subject  studied  aloud  both  in  reading  and  recitation,  and  all  cor- 
rections and  promptings  were  made  orally  by  the  experimenter. 

TABLE  VIII   (from  Witasek,  p.  267) 

Showing  the  superiority  of  a  group  of  recitations  over  a 
group  of  readings,  absolutely  and  relatively  9 


Number  of 
preliminary 
readings 

Superiority  in 
number  of  repetitions 

Superiority  in 
number  of  seconds 

Superiority  in 
number  of  prompts 

Absolutely 

Relatively 

Absolutely 

Relatively 

Absolutely 

Relatively 

Of  five  recitations  over  five  readings 


6 

2-3 

90  per  cent. 

87 

90  percent. 

4 

80  per  cent. 

II 

2.0 

80  per  cent. 

73 

80  per  cent. 

6 

i  oo  per  cent. 

16 

1-4 

70  per  cent. 

54 

70  per  cent. 

3 

60  per  cent. 

Of  ten  recitations  over  ten  readings 


6 
ii 

i-5 

2.0 

70  per  cent. 
60  per  cent. 

62 
61 

70  per  cent. 
60  per  cent. 

5 
3 

80  per  cent. 
60  per  cent. 

Of  fifteen  recitations  over  fifteen  readings 


6 

1.8 

60  percent. 

62 

60  percent. 

4 

60  percent. 

In  the  case  of  recitation,  however,  the  first  syllables  of  the  pairs 
were  spoken  by  the  experimenter.  An  interval  of  six  to  seven 
seconds  was  given  between  repetitions.  Three  series  of  syllables 
were  learned  each  day,  a  three-minute  rest  being  allowed  between 
lessons.  The  method  of  computation  used  by  Witasek  is,  in  many 
cases,  somewhat  confusing.  He  frequently  makes  use  of  the  term 
'imprinting  value'  ('Einpragungswert')  which  means  the  value  of 

8  'Ober  Lesen  und  Rezitieren  in  ihrer  Beziehungen  zum  Gedachtnis',  Zeitschrift  fur  Psychologic, 
1907,  44,  pp.  161-185,  246-278. 

9  To  make  the  meaning  of  the  table  clearer  the  procedure  may  be  described  more  in  detail.    To 
begin  with,  the  lists  were  read  six,  eleven,  or  sixteen  times  as  indicated.    One  hour  later,  the  lists 
were  in  one  case  read,  and  in  the  other  case,  recited,  five,  ten,  or  fifteen  times  as  indicated,  and 
immediately  after  the  learning  of  the  lists  was  completed  by  further  recitations.    From  these  data, 
the  saving  in  the  total  time  required  to  learn  was  computed  for  the  groups  of  readings  and  for  the 
groups  of  recitations.    The  table  above  presents,  absolutely  and  relatively,  the  differences  between 
the  savings  brought  about  by  reading  and  by  recitation — the  differences  always  being  in  favor  of  the 
groups  of  recitations  as  shown. 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


II 


a  repetition  in  reducing  the  time  or  repetitions  needed  to  complete 
the  learning.  Table  VIII  shows  the  superiority  of  a  group  of  recita- 
tions over  an  equal  group  of  readings,  after  a  given  number  of 
preliminary  readings,  in  reducing  the  time  required  after  an  inter- 
val of  an  hour,  to  complete  the  learning  so  that  the  entire  list  could 
be  recited  without  prompts  in  ten  seconds  or  less.  The  table  is 
based  upon  the  work  of  seven  university  graduates  and  faculty 
members,  tested  three  or  four  times,  a  total  of  twenty-four  tests. 
The  table  shows  in  summary  form  a  finding  which  is  demonstrated 
in  more  detail  by  Witasek,  e.  g.,  that  the  imprinting  value  of 
successive  readings  declines  very  rapidly  after  the  first  few.  That 


TABLE  IX  (from  Witasek,  pp.  184-185) 


Number  of 
original 
readings 

Number  of 
additional 
readings 

Number  of 
recitations 

Total 
repetitions 

Speed  of 
recitations 
after  one  hour 

Number  of 
prompts 

6 

0 

0 

6 

78* 

7-9 

6 

5 

O 

II 

75  * 

7.2 

6 

o 

5 

II 

63" 

6.3 

6 

0 

10 

16 

69* 

5-8 

6 

IO 

o 

16 

74" 

7-5 

6 

5 

5 

16 

66" 

6.0 

6 

0 

15 

21 

66" 

5-5 

6 

15 

0 

21 

73' 

6-7 

6 

5 

10 

21 

65" 

5-9 

6 

10 

5 

21 

66  ' 

5-7 

6 

10 

IO 

26 

69' 

5-7 

6 

5 

15 

26 

65" 

6.2 

is  to  say,  readings  are  pronouncedly  subject  to  a  law  of  diminishing 
returns.  In  this  respect,  recitations  proved  to  be  a  better  form  of 
repetition.  It  is  apparent,  from  the  table,  that  recitations  intro- 
duced into  the  learning  at  almost  any  point  are  of  more  value  than 
continued  readings.  However,  the  superiority  of  recitation  seems 
to  be  somewhat  greater  when  introduced  after  six  than  when 
introduced  after  eleven  or  sixteen  readings.  This  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  recitations,  too,  are  subject  decidedly  to  the  law  of 
diminishing  returns.  But  Witasek  explains  that  in  these  particular 
tests  with  a  large  number  of  repetitions  "the  readings  unconsciously 
become  very  similar  to  recitations."  The  learner,  finding  the  read- 
ings to  become  more  and  more  fruitless,  is  unable  to  restrain  a 
natural  inclination  to  partially  recite. 

So  far  experiments  have  merely  confirmed  the  current  opinion 
that  recitations,  if  not  introduced  too  early  in  the  learning  process, 


12 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


are  of  more  value  than  continued  readings.  It  remains  to  enquire 
into  the  combination  that  will  yield  the  richest  returns  in  propor- 
tion to  the  outlay  of  time  and  energy.  Table  IX  shows  the  rela- 
tive effectiveness  of  several  combinations  as  measured  by  the  speed 
of  the  first  recitation  after  an  interval  of  an  hour,  together  with  the 
number  of  prompts.  The  procedure  in  this  recitation  was  as  follows : 
The  first  member  of  each  pair  was  exposed,  the  subject  responding 
with  the  second  member,  whereupon  the  first  member  of  the  next 
pair  was  exposed  and  so  on.  If  the  subject  responded  incorrectly, 
he  was  corrected  by  the  experimenter,  and  if  the  subject  could  not 

TABLE  X  (from  Witasek,  p.   1840 


Number  of 
original 
readings 

Number  of 
additional 
readings 

Number  of 
recitations 

Total 
repetitions 

Speed  of 
third  recitation 
after  one  hour 

Number  of 
prompts 

6 

0 

0 

6 

37" 

1.8 

6 

5 

0 

II 

34" 

i-7 

6 

0 

5 

ii 

22" 

0.8 

6 

0 

10 

16 

20" 

0.8 

6 

IO 

o 

16 

32" 

1.6 

6 

5 

5 

16 

19" 

0-5 

6 

0 

15 

21 

15" 

0-5 

6 

15 

0 

21 

27" 

0-5 

6 

5 

10 

21 

18" 

0.7 

6 

10 

5 

21 

19" 

0.7 

6 

10 

10 

26 

20" 

0.9 

6 

5 

15 

26 

16" 

0.4 

respond  at  all  within  ten  seconds,  the  experimenter  gave  the  response 
orally  and  exposed  the  next  syllable  in  the  series. 

The  results  shown  in  this  table  are  not  very  clean  cut  and  in  some 
respects  are  rather  surprising.  Within  the  various  groups  showing 
an  equal  number  of  repetitions,  it  is  quite  clear  that  a  combination 
of  recitations  with  readings  leads  to  a  more  successful  recitation 
after  an  hour  than  when  reading  only  was  employed  in  the  study 
period.  The  advantage  does  not  appear  to  be  very  great,  however. 
What  is  quite  surprising  is  that  a  small  number  of  repetitions  of  any 
sort  (six  or  eleven)  leads  to  nearly  as  effective  a  recitation  after  an  hour 
as  a  larger  number  (sixteen,  twenty-one,  or  twenty-six).  From  this 
it  would  appear  that  repetitions  beyond  eleven  are  pretty  largely  wast- 
ed, and  accordingly  recitation,  contrary  to  Wjtasek's  earlier  conten- 
tion, must  be  subject  also  to  a  law  of  greatly  diminishing  returns. 

The  above  table  (Table  X)  which  was  computed  from  Wita- 
sek's  original  data,  shows  that  the  results  for  the  third  attempted 


RECITATION  AS  A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  13 

recitation  after  the  interval  of  an  hour  are  quite  different  from  those 
based  on  the  first  recitation  after  the  interval.  The  second,  fourth, 
or  fifth  recitation  would  have  shown  a  similar  difference. 

In  the  case  of  these  later  repetitions,  the  advantage  of  recitation 
as  a  factor  in  the  original  learning  is  quite  pronounced.  It  is 
apparent  also,  that  although  the  law  of  diminishing  returns  is  still 
seen  to  operate,  its  influence  is  very  much  less  marked  than  appeared 
in  the  results  for  the  first  recitation  after  the  interval. 

Table  XI  exhibits  the  results  in  terms  of  the  total  time  required 
to  learn  the  series  in  trvvo  sittings  separated  by  an  hour. 


TABLE  XI  (from  Witasek,  p.  274) 


Work  of  the  first  sitting 

Work  of  the  second  sitting 

Combina- 
tion 

Time  of 
reading 

Time  of 
reciting 

Pauses 
between 
repetitions 

Time  in 
recitations 

Pauses 
between 
recitations 

Sum  with 
pauses 

Sum 
without 
pauses* 

L6     Ro 

60 

0 

35 

262 

56 

413 

322 

Li  i   Ro 

110 

0 

70 

236 

49 

465 

346 

Li6  Ro 

1  60 

0 

105 

228 

42 

535 

388 

L2i  Ro 

210 

0 

140 

2O2 

42 

594 

412 

L6     RS 

60 

96 

70 

143 

28 

397 

299 

L6     Rio 

60 

1  66 

105 

163 

35 

529 

389 

L6     Ri5 

60 

206 

140 

133 

28 

567 

399 

Li  i  Rs 

110 

80 

105 

145 

28 

468 

335 

LII  Rio 

110 

119 

140 

I24 

21 

5H 

353 

LII  Ri5 

no 

142 

175 

109 

H 

550 

36i 

Li6  RS 

1  60 

69 

140 

142 

21 

532 

37i 

Li6  Rio 

1  60 

121 

175 

153 

28 

.637 

434 

Table  XII  shows  the  data  of  Table  XI  rearranged,  the  combina- 
tions being  arrayed  in  the  order  of  their  effectiveness  with  the 
percentages  of  time  devoted  to  reading  and  to  recitation. 

The  findings  indicate  that  a  small  amount  of  work  at  the  first 
sitting  pays  better  than  a  large  amount;  that  is  to  say,  the  series 
can  be  learned  more  quickly  in  the  end  if  only  a  small  proportion 
of  the  total  time  is  devoted  to  the  first  study  while  the  larger  portion 
is  saved  for  the  review  an  hour  later.  There  is  considerable  evi- 
dence that  better  results  are  obtained  if  the  original  study  period 
is  partly  devoted  to  recitation;  for  example,  6  Ls  plus  5  Rs  gives 
better  results  than  n  Ls;  1 1  Ls  plus  5  Rs  is  much  better  than  16 
Ls  and  so  on.  However,  the  most  potent  factor  is  the  distribution 
of  the  recitations.  The  best  results  are  obtainable  when  the  original 
period  includes  about  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the  total  learning 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 
TABLE  XII   (based  on  Table  XI; 


First  sitting 

Second  sitting 

Combination 

Per  cent,  of 
time  for 

Per  cent,  of 
time  for 

Per  cent,  of 
time  for 

Sum  with 

Sum  without 

reading 

recitation 

recitation 

pauses 

pauses 

L6     R5 

24 

33 

43 

397 

299 

L6     Ro 

23 

0 

77 

413 

322 

Li  i  Ro 

39 

o 

61 

465 

346 

Li  i  R5 

39 

24 

37 

468 

335 

LII  Rio 

35 

37 

28 

514 

353 

L6     Rio 

18 

45 

37 

529 

389 

Li6  R5 

50 

20 

30 

532 

37i 

Li6  Ro 

50 

o 

50 

535 

388 

LII  Ri5 

33 

45 

22 

550 

36i 

L6     Ri5 

17 

55 

28 

567 

399 

L2i  Ro 

59 

o 

41 

594 

412 

Li6  Rio 

42 

30 

28 

637 

434 

time,  allotting  about  half  of  this  time  each  to  reading  and  to  recita- 
tion. Beyond  this  amount,  recitations  introduced  into  the  review 
are  much  more  effective  than  recitations  in  the  first  period  of  study. 

On  the  whole,  so  far  as  the  matter  of  the  relative  values  of  reading 
and  recitation  as  factors  in  learning  are  concerned,  Witasek's 
method  of  attack  is  subject  to  several  defects.  In  the  first  place, 
too  many  variable  factors  are  introduced.  The  influence  of  various 
divisions  of  the  lesson,  without  regard  to  the  methods  of  study 
employed,  makes  interpretation  difficult.  Moreover,  as  Witasek 
himself  points  out,  the  conditions  of  the  experiment  were  such  that 
the  readings,  especially  after  a  number  of  perusals,  became,  unin- 
tentionally, very  much  like  recitations.  Witasek's  procedure  may  also 
be  charged  with  most  of  the  defects  found  in  Katzaroff's  experi- 
ments; in  reading,  the  subject  prompted  himself  by  looking  at  the 
forgotten  syllable,  but  during  recitation,  promptings  were  made 
orally  by  the  experimenter;  the  subjects  were  few  and  all  were 
trained  adults,  whose  habitual  mode  of  studying  may  have  been 
seriously  interfered  with  by  the  particular  conditions  of  the  experi- 
ment; and  finally  practice  effects  were  by  no  means  fully  eliminated. 

From  his  study,  Witasek  drew  the  general  conclusion  that  recita- 
tion, as  compared  to  reading,  is  a  much  more  effective  method  of 
study.  The  difference  in  favor  of  recitation  was  attributed  in  the 
main  to  a  'higher,  degree  of  attention'  which  was  made  possible  by 
virtue  of  the  opportunity  afforded  the  subject  to  gauge  his  progress 
in  the  learning  and  apply  himself  to  the  portions  that  offered  diffi- 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  15 

culty.  The  higher  grade  of  attentiveness  is  closely  correlated  with 
an  apparently  'greater  activity'  shown  during  recitation.  In  read- 
ing the  subject  is  likely  to  relax  into  a  state  of  passive  receptivity, 
in  recitation,  the  attitude  is  one  of  alert,  searching  ('sich  besinnen') 
activity. 

In  an  experiment  by  Miss  Abbott,10  the  problem  has  been  attacked 
from  a  somewhat  different  point  of  view.  Miss  Abbott  endeavored 
to  determine  the  learning  types  of  a  limited  number  of  individuals 
and  to  utilize  this  information  in  the  interpretation  of  the  numerical 
results.  As  material,  lists  of  thirty  nonsense  syllables  and  sixty 
English  words  were  used.  An  apparatus  was  provided  such  that 
the  words  or  syllables  could  be  exposed  singly  for  any  time 
desired.  A  fixed  time  (sixteen  minutes)  was  allowed  for  the 
study  period,  this  time  being  divided  up  into  various  combinations 
of  reading  and  recall. 

The  groups  of  words  and  syllables  were  presented  in  various  ways 
as  shown  in  Table  XIII. 


TABLE  XIII 


Series 

First  eight  minutes 
spent  in 

Exposure 
time  per 
item 

Interval 
between 
items 

Interval  be- 
tween first  and 
second  learning 
period 

Second  eight  min- 
utes spent  in 

a 

visual  imprinting 

I" 

0 

I' 

visual  imprinting 

b 

v 

0 

15' 

H 

c 

it 

O 

45' 

«i 

d 

it 

0 

i' 

Recall 

e 

» 

0 

15' 

«i 

f 

u 

0 

45' 

d 

g 

tt 

O 

h 

visual  imprinting 

H 

3" 

i' 

visual  imprinting 

and  recall 

and  recall 

i 

visual  imprinting 

I" 

3" 

15' 

visual  imprinting 

and  recall 

and  recall 

j 

visual  imprinting 

I' 

3" 

45' 

visual  imprinting 

and  recall 

and  recall 

k 

visual  imprinting 

I" 

3" 

and  recall 

All  series  were  allotted  a  sixteen-minute  study  period  except 
series  g  and  k  which  received  but  eight  minutes.  In  series  a,  b,  c, 
and  g  no  opportunity  is  given  for  recall,  the  whole  time  being  spent 
in  'Einpragung' ;  in  series  d,  e,  and  f  the  first  eight  minutes  is 

10  'On  the  Analysis  of  the  Factor  of  Recall  in  the  Learning  Process',  Psychological  Review 
Monograph,  1909,  11,  pp.  159-177. 


16 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


spent  in  imprinting  followed  by  eight  minutes  of  recall;  while  in 
series  h,  i,  and  j,  three-fourths  of  the  time  is  devoted  to  recall,  which 
is  interspersed  with  the  'Einpragung'  occupying  the  three-second 
intervals  indicated  in  the  table. 

In  all  cases  the  subjects  worked  under  certain  restrictions. 
During  the  presentation  of  the  material  in  series  a,  b,  c,  d,  e,  f,  and 
g,  the  subject  was  not  to  form  any  associative  links  between  the 
items  and  while  one  item  was  before  him,  he  was  not  to  think  of 
another.  During  the  recall  period  in  the  d,  e,  f  series,  while  the 
subject  was  permitted  to  image  the  items  and  form  such  associations 

TABLE  XIV  (from  Abbott,  p.  173) 
Percentages  of  words  and  syllables  correctly  recalled  after  four  hours 


Series 

a 

b 

c 

d 

e 

f 

g 

h 

i 

i 

k 

•  Subject 

Words 

23 

23 

24 

23 

33 

25 

23 

4i 

59 

42 

8 

V 

Syllables 

42 

38 

40 

35 

40 

17 

22 

68 

92 

70 

47 

Words 

8 

8 

13 

29 

12 

8 

5 

97 

98 

97 

62 

w 

Syllables 

20 

15 

12 

20 

30 

27 

8 

97 

97 

98 

62 

Words 

15 

28 

23 

28 

15 

18 

13 

3i 

34 

30 

18 

X 

Syllables 

13 

13 

22 

22 

17 

18 

5 

30 

27 

48 

10 

Words 

67 

78 

83 

48 

42 

43 

28 

53 

55 

17 

23 

Y 

Syllables 

67 

53 

70 

67 

63 

50 

57 

63 

67 

53 

43 

Words 

54 

61 

56 

Z 

Syllables 

60 

50 

55 

as  he  wished,  he  was  not  allowed  to  pronounce  them  or  to  write 
them  down. 

Five  students  of  psychology  acted  as  subjects  in  the  tests.  The 
image  type  of  each  was  determined  as  follows:  Subject  V  employed 
inner  speech  and  concrete  visual  imagery;  Subject  W  was  of  a 
motor-auditory  verbal  type;  X,  motor-auditory  with  some  visual 
imagery;  Y  was  strongly  visual,  never  pronounces  a  word,  just  lets 
it  'soak  in' ;  and  Z  was  of  mixed  type,  employing  different  kinds 
of  imagery  at  different  times. 

The  test  of  memory  consisted  in  requiring  the  subjects  to  write, 
four  hours  after  the  test,  all  the  words  or  syllables  they  could 
remember.  Table  XIV  shows  the  results  in  the  form  of  percentages 
of  the  total  lists  that  were  correctly  reproduced. 

Table  XV  was  derived  from  Table  XIV  by  subtracting  the 
results  obtained  in  series  g,  from  the  results  obtained  in  series  a,  b, 
c,  d,  e,  f,  respectively.  This  table,  consequently,  presents  the  gain 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


brought  about  by  the  second  eight  minutes  of  reading  or  recall  as 
compared  to  the  results  obtained  by  the  first  eight  minutes  imprint- 
ing alone. 

TABLE  XV  (from  Abbott,  p.  173) 
Showing  the  advantage  of  sixteen  minutes  study  over  eight  minutes 


Series 

a 

b 

c 

d 

e 

f 

Subject 

Words 

0 

0 

I 

0 

10 

2 

V 

Syllables 

20 

16  - 

18 

13 

18 

—5 

Words 

3 

3 

8 

24 

7 

3 

w 

Syllables 

12 

7 

4 

12 

22 

19 

Words 

2 

15 

10 

15 

2 

5 

X 

Syllables 

8 

8 

17 

17 

12 

13 

Words 

39 

50 

55 

2O 

H 

15 

Y 

Syllables 

10 

—4 

13 

10 

6 

—7 

Table  XVI  gives  the  results  for  words  and  syllables  combined 
together  with  the  averages  for  a,  b,  c;  d,  e,  f ;  and  h,  i,  j,  respectively, 
based  on  the  data  from  Table  XIII. 

TABLE  XVI  (from  Abbott,  p.  174) 
Showing  the  combined  results  for  words  and  syllables 


Series 

a 

h 

c 

Aver- 

d 

e 

f 

Aver- 

h 

i 

j 

Aver- 

g 

k 

Sub- 

age 

age 

age 

ject 

29 

28 

29 

2Q 

27 

35 

22 

29 

50 

70 

5i 

56 

23 

21 

V 

12 

II 

12 

II 

26 

18 

14 

19 

97 

98 

97 

97 

6 

62 

w 

14 

23 

23 

2O 

26 

16 

18 

20 

3i 

32 

36 

35 

10 

16 

X 

67 

70 

79 

72 

54 

49 

46 

49 

57 

59 

29 

48 

38 

30 

Y 

From  Table  XV  it  appears  that  with  the  exception  of  three 
cases  the  additional  eight  minutes  of  reading  or  recall  results  in  a 
greater  amount  of  material  recalled,  and  for  all  subjects  except  Y, 
the  value  of  the  additional  study  is  more  pronounced  in  learning 
nonsense  syllables  than  in  learning  words. 

The  most  significant  comparisons  appear  in  Table  XV.  Subject 
W,  of  auditory-motor  type,  does  much  better  in  series  h,  i,  j,  than 
in  d,  e,  f,  which  in  turn  gives  better  results  than  a,  b,  c.  That  is,  the 
methods  restricting  learning  to  visual  imprinting  alone  are  the 
poorest  of  all;  the  method  giving  eight  minutes  of  imprinting 
followed  by  eight  minutes  recall  is  much  better;  while  the  method 


1 8  RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN  MEMORIZING 

giving  three-fourths  of  the  time  to  interspersed  recall  gives  results 
about  nine  times  as  good  as  the  first.  Subjects  V  and  X  agree  in 
showing  sixteen  minutes  of  visual  imprinting  to  be  as  effective  as 
eight  minutes  of  imprinting  followed  by  eight  minutes  of  re- 
call, but  each  shows  to  better  advantage  when  three-fourths 
of  the  time  is  spent  in  interspersed  recall  (series  h,  i,  j). 
These  subjects  ordinarily  employed  auditory-motor  imagery  or 
inner  speech  and  were  undoubtedly  greatly  hampered  by  some 
of  the  restrictions  placed  upon  them  in  the  d,  e,  f  series. 
Subject  F,  who  possessed  strong  visual  imagery,  learning  by  sim- 
ply allowing  the  items  to  'soak  in',  does  very  well  in  the  method 
of  visual  imprinting  and  very  poorly  in  either  method  employ- 
ing recall. 

From  this  study,  Miss  Abbott  draws  the  following  conclusions: 

1.  That  the  factor  of  recall  is  always  an  aid  in  the  learning  process. 

2.  That  when  recall  comes  after  the  Einprdgung  of  the  material,  immediate 
recall  is  of  more  value  than  delayed  recall  and  its  value  decreases  as  the  delay 
increases  in  length. 

3.  That  the  recall  is  of  greater  value  when  it  is  interspersed  with  the  Ein- 
prdgung. 

4.  That  localization  is  one  of  the  factors  which  go  to  make  recall  an  aid  to 
memory,  but  that  the  relative  importance  of  this  factor  is  determined  by  indi- 
vidual type. 

5.  That  the  relative  value  of  recall  and  Einprdgung  depends  on  individual 
type. 

To  the  present  writer,  it  seems  that  the  third  conclusion,  e.  g., 
"That  recall  is  of  greater  value  when  it  is  interspersed  with  the 
Einpragung,"  is  not  entirely  borne  out,  at  least  not  in  such  form  as 
to  be  applicable  to  every-day,  non-restricted  methods  of  learning. 
In  the  first  place,  the  methods  employing  the  interspersed  recall 
devote  twenty-five  per  cent,  more  time  to  it  than  do  the  methods 
in  which  the  recalls  are  grouped.  Again,  the  severe  restrictions 
placed  on  the  first  eight  minutes  of  learning  by  reading  in  the  series 
a,  b,  c,  d,  e,  and  f  are  avoided  in  the  series  in  which  recall  is  inter- 
spersed with  reading.  It  will  be  recalled  that  Katzaroff  in  experi- 
ments in  which  restrictions  were  less  severe,  and  employing  a 
larger  number  of  subjects,  found  that  recitations  grouped  gave 
better  results  than  recitations  interspersed  with  readings.  (See 

P.  5.) 

A  study  by  Clemens  Knors,11  although  not  primarily  concerned 
with  the  present  problem,  contributes  some  information  concerning 
three  different  methods  of  memorizing  paired  material.  Method  A 
is  similar  to  the  'reconstruction  method'  introduced  by  Miss 

11  'Experimentelle  Untersuchungen  iiber  den  Lernprozess",  Archive  f.  d.  g.  Psychologic,  1910, 
17,  pp.  297-362. 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  1 9 

Gamble.12  The  series  was  first  read  through  once,  the  subject  then 
attempted  to  recite  both  members  of  the  pairs;  the  series  was  then 
read  again,  followed  by  another  attempt  at  reconstruction  and  so 
on  until  learned.  Method  B  was  the  same  except  that,  in  recitation, 
the  first  members  of  the  pairs  were  exposed,  the  learner  attempting 
to  recite  the  second  members  only.  In  Method  C  the  subject  read 
and  reread  the  series  until  he  felt  that  they  were  mastered ;  where- 
upon he  was  tested  by  exposing  the  first  members  of  the  pair  as  in 
Method  B.  It  will  be  noted  that  Method  A  permits  the  recitation 
of  both  members  of  the  pairs,  Method  B  of  but  the  first  member, 
while  Method  C  permits  no  recitation  during  the  learning. 

In  all  methods  the  subject  read  or  recited  aloud,  the  number  of 
perusals  and  the  number  of  promptings  being  recorded.  The  scores 
are  given  in  the  form  of  the  total  amount  of  material  that  was  read 
by  the  subject  plus  the  amount  supplied  him  in  the  form  of  prompt- 
ings or  corrections  by  the  experimenter.  The  following  sample  will 
show  how  the  score  was  computed.  Suppose  a  series  of  fourteen 
syllables  is  learned  by  eight  readings  plus  seven  attempted  recita- 
tions, during  which  fifty-one  syllables  were  supplied  by  the  experi- 
menter. Then  the  total  score  would  be  eight  (the  number  of  read- 
ings) plus  fifty-one  (the  total  number  of  prompts)  divided  by 
fourteen  (the  number  of  syllables  in  the  list).  That  is,  score  = 
8  +  51/14  =  11.64. 

From  the  original  data  given  by  Knors,  the  results  shown  in 
Table  XVII  have  been  computed.  Unfortunately  Knors  did  not 
print  all  of  the  raw  data  that  he  collected,  so  that  some  of  the  tables 
are  incomplete.  The  subjects  are  three  adults  (A,  B,  C)  and  four 
children  (a,  b,  c,  d)  eleven  to  thirteen  years  of  age.  The  table 
presents  the  average  score  of  three  or  four  tests  for  each  individual. 

Although  the  results  are  somewhat  irregular,  a  few  points  can 
be  made  out.  Sections  H  and  /  indicate  that,  for  adults,  Method 
A,  which  requires  the  recitation  of  both  members  of  the  pairs,  is 
superior  to  Method  B.  in  which  but  the  second  member  is  recited. 
For  Subjects  A  and  C  the  differences  are  very  great.  The  same 
subjects,  however,  show  but  a  slight  superiority  of  Method  A  over 
Method  C  in  which  reading  alone  was  involved. 

Although  the  findings  for  the  children  are  very  irregular,  some 
differences  between  the  methods  seem  clearly  to  appear.  When 
the  series  of  nonsense  syllables  to  be  learned  is  long  (Section  L), 
Methods  A  and  B  are  both  superior  to  C,  which  permits  reading 
only;  but  when  the  series  is  short  (Section  M)  the  differences  are 
very  small.  The  differences  between  Methods  A  and  B  in  either 

u  'A  Study  in  Memorizing  Various  Material  by  the  Reconstruction  Method',  Psychological 
Reiie-uc  Monograph,  1909,  10,  No.  4. 


20 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


case  are  so  small  as  to  be  negligible.  In  the  case  of  senseful  words, 
the  advantage  of  Method  A  over  C  is  very  great,  the  two  standing, 
for  different  individuals,  in  various  ratios  ranging  from  seven  to 
five  up  to  four  to  one.  It  appears  in  general,  then,  that  children, 
as  compared  to  adults,  profit  much  more  through  the  employment 
of  recitation  in  learning. 

However,  but  little  reliability  can  be  placed  upon  the  scanty 
findings  of  these  experiments.  The  number  of  subjects  is  too  small 
and  the  quantitative  results  are  too  meager.  The  time  of  the  various 
readings  and  recitations  not  being  kept,  there  is  some  doubt  whether 
any  of  the  methods  would  show  a  distinct  advantage  with  respect 

TABLE  XVII   (from  Knors) 


H 

I 

J 

K 

Sub- 

Fourteen nonsense 

Eighteen  nonsense 

Ten  sense 

Eighteen  sense 

jects 

syllables.    Methods 

syllables 

words 

words 

A 

B 

C 

A 

B 

c 

A 

B 

C 

A 

B 

C 

A 

6.9 

12.3 

7-9 

14.8 

4-5 

4.8 

5-2 

7-2 

B 

10.4 

14-5 

ii  .1 

13-2 

3-9 

3-8 

4-7 

6.8 

C 

9-5 

13.2 

7-9 

12  .2 

4-i 

41 

3-8 

5-6 

L 

M 

N 

0 

Sub- 

Fourteen nonsense 

Eight  nonsense 

Ten  sense 

Fourteen  sense 

jects 

syllables.    Methods 

syllables 

words 

words 

A 

B 

c 

A 

B 

c 

A 

B 

C 

A 

B 

C 

a 

17.9 

12.2 

23-7 

I4.I 

8-9 

12.9 

5-7 

7-3 

6-5 

12-5 

b 

II  .  I 

10.8 

29-3 

9-1 

ii.  3 

12.0 

4-3 

10.  I 

5-9 

19.5 

c 

II.  I 

13-3 

30.7 

7-8 

8-7 

I3-I 

5-0 

19.2 

6.1 

22.4 

d 

10.5 

13-6 

19.6 

10.6 

99 

II  .2 

6.0 

H-5 

7-8 

17.8 

to  the  total  amount  of  time  required  to  learn.  Unfortunately 
Knors  did  not  print  all  of  his  raw  data,  but  from  what  does  appear, 
it  is  clear  that  the  variability  of  the  performances,  especially  those 
of  the  children,  is  very  great.  Subject  A,  for  example,  in  three  tests 
of  learning  series  of  nonsense  syllables  by  Method  A,  shows  an 
average  score  of  9.0  with  a  P.  E.  of  2.2.  On  the  whole,  it  would  not 
be  safe  to  consider  Knors's  results  as  more  than  suggestive. 

SUMMARY   OF   RESULTS 

Without  doubt,  this  brief  enumeration  of  the  results  of  such  a 
medley  of  experiments  has  left  but  a  vague  impression  with  regard 
to  present  status  of  the  problem  under  consideration.  Perhaps  an 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  21 

effort  to  summarize  the  findings  will  assist  somewhat  to  a  better 
understanding.  Such  an  effort,  however,  is  fraught  with  difficulty. 
When  one  considers  the  individual  differences  possible  among  the 
subjects,  the  variations  in  materials,  in  method  of  presentation, 
and  in  the  methods  of  scoring  and  the  like,  it  can  be  readily  under- 
stood that  direct  comparison  of  many  studies  is  quite  out  of  the 
question.  Perhaps  it  will  be  worth  while,  first,  to  review  the 
methods  of  attack  employed  in  the  several  studies  and,  by  throwing 
the  differences  into  relief,  pave  the  way  for  a  concise  summary  of 
the  outstanding  results  that  will  then  be  presented  and  for  an 
understanding  of  the  relation  of  the  present  study  to  those  which 
have  gone  before. 

1.  Differences  as  regards  materials.     Most  of  the  studies  have 
employed  the  method  of  paired  associates;    as  material,  nonsense 
syllables  in  pairs,  senseful  words  in  pairs,  digits  paired  with  non- 
sense syllables,  and  foreign  words  paired  with  the  vernacular  have 
been  used.     Single  series  of  senseless  or  senseful  words  of  various 
lengths  have  also  been  used,  and,  in  some  cases,  connected  sense 
material  such  as  prose  or  poetry.     It  is  possible  that  the  results 
might  differ  considerably  according  to  the  kind  of  material  used; 
in  fact,  Kiihn  and  Knors  found  that  this  was  decidedly  the  case. 

2.  Subjects.     With  the  exception  of  the  few  experiments  with 
four  boys,  conducted  by  Knors,  well  educated  adults  have  been 
employed.    In  nearly  every  case,  moreover,  the  number  of  subjects 
has  been  entirely  too  small  to  eliminate  differences  which  might  be 
due  to*  the  influence  of  previously  acquired  habits  of  study  as  well 
as  the  more  innate  differences  such  as  those  considered  by  Miss 
Abbott. 

3.  Methods  of  presenting  the  material.    In  most  cases,  the  material 
has  been  presented  visually,  but  as  was  noted  above  (p.  5)  some- 
times the  method  of  presentation  changes  within  the  lesson.    Both 
WTitasek  and  Katzaroff  presented  their  material  visually  w^hen  the 
subject  was  reading,  but  during  the  recitation  the  material  was 
presented  orally.     In  some  cases,  the  material  is  printed  large,  in 
some,  small;    in  some  it  is  held  in  the  hand;    in  others,  it  is  at  a 
distance  or  thrown  on  a  screen;    sometimes  the  material  is  pre- 
sented simultaneously,  sometimes  serially.    The  tempo  of  presenta- 
tion is  an  important  matter  also.     In  nearly  all  cases,  the  tempo 
was  controlled  and  varies  greatly  from  experimenter  to  experimenter. 
Klihn  presented  syllables  at  the  rate  of  one  each  0.4  second,  Abbott 
one  per  second,  and  Katzaroff  one  every  two  seconds.     No  one 
knows  how  closely  these  rates  corresponded  to  the  habitual  tempo 
of  the  learner,  and,  what  is  more,  as  was  shown  by  Kiihn  and  as  we 
shall  see  again  later,  the  natural  tempo  of  recitation  is  considerably 


22  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

slower,  on  the  average,  than  that  of  reading.  In  short,  the  results 
are  affected  somewhat  by  the  rate 'of  presentation,  influence  of  which 
is  likely  to  be  different  upon  reading  than  upon  recitation. 

4.  Methods  of  reciting  or  recalling.     Aside   from   employing   a 
fixed  rate  of  presentation  of  the  material,  the  recitation  or  recall 
often  worked  under  other  restrictions.     For  example,  Miss  Abbott 
in  some  tests  restricted  the  learning  to  mere  inner  visualization  of 
the  data.     In  other  cases,   Knors  for  example,   the  subject  was 
required  to  read  and  recite  aloud.     As  a  result  of  these  various 
controls,  the  methods  of  learning  became  highly  artificial;   seldom 
was  a  subject  permitted  to  study  in  the  manner  that  he  would 
spontaneously  adopt,  and  too  often  the  restrictions  were  not  the 
same  for  recitation  as  for  reading. 

5.  Testing  the  learning  and  computing  the  results.    Sometimes  the 
lesson  consisted  of  a  certain  number  of  repetitions,  in  which  cases 
the  learning  was  never  complete.    The  success  attained  might  be 
measured  by  the  rate  of  the  next  recitation  following  immediately 
or  after  an  hour  (Witasek),  or  simply  by  the  amount  of  material 
that  could  then  be  reproduced  immediately  or  after  an  interval,  or 
by  the  time  required  to  complete  the  learning  then  or  later.    Some- 
times, a  certain  amount  of  time  was  given  for  study,  and  the  amount 
that  could  be  reproduced  immediately  or  after  an  interval  (Abbott) 
was  taken  as  a  measure  of  the  learning.    Sometimes,  the  assignment 
was  learned  at  a  sitting  (Kiihn),  the  score  being  based  on  the  time 
or  repetitions  required  to  learn.    Other  things,  such  as  the  number 
of  prompts  required  (Witasek),  or  the  recitation  time  (Katzaroff), 
have  been  introduced  as  a  measure  of  success.     Add  to   these 
differences  the  highly  ingenious  yet  anything  but  clean-cut  methods 
of  computation,  such  as  those  introduced  by  Witasek  and  Knors, 
and  it  is  clear  that  to  adequately  compare  the  results  of  these 
studies  one  with  another,  is  next  to  impossible. 

Certain  other  sources  of  error,  such  as  neglect  of  practice  effects, 
fatigue,  diurnal  variations  in  efficiency  add  to  the  uncertainty.  So 
it  is  only  with  all  these  differences  and  sources  of  error  in  mind  that 
an  attempt  will  be  made  to  give  a  brief  summary  of  the  general 
status  of  the  problem. 

First.  A  predominance  of  evidence  points  to  a  greater  effective- 
ness of  recitation,  compared  to  reading,  as  a  factor  in  learning  in 
the  case  of  adults,  at  least. 

Second.  This  rule  holds  true  only  after  the  learning  has  advanced 
somewhat  by  virtue  of  preliminary  readings,  but  the  exact  point  at 
which  it  is  best  to  introduce  recitation  into  the  learning,  or  the 
optimum  distribution  of  readings  and  recitations  within  the  lesson, 
has  not  been  satisfactorily  demonstrated. 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  23 

Third.  The  more  reliable  experiments,  such  as  those  of  Kiihn, 
indicate  that  the  advantage  of  recitation  over  reading  is  greater  in 
learning  senseless,  non-connected  material  than  in  learning  senseful, 
connected  material. 

Fourth.  The  matter  of  the  relative  value  of  recitations  grouped, 
as  compared  to  recitations  interspersed  with  the  readings,  is  still 
an  open  question. 

Fifth.  No  satisfactory  evidence  is  at  hand  indicating  that  the 
general  results  found  for  adults  will  hold  in  the  case  of  children  of 
grammar  or  high  school  age  and  training. 

Sixth.  A  considerable,  but  not  thoroughly  convincing  amount  of 
evidence  indicates  that  the  efficacy  of  the  two  methods  of  study 
depends  entirely  upon  the  learning  or  imagery  type  of  the  individual. 

Seventh.  The  two  broad  functions,  learning  by  reading  and  learn- 
ing by  recitation,  have  not  as  yet  been  adequately  analyzed  into 
their  constituent  functions. 


Ill 

THE  SUBJECTS,   MATERIALS,   AND   METHODS 
OF   PROCEDURE 

As  was  mentioned  earlier,  the  present  study  was  devised  to 
answer  a  practical  question  of  the  school-room — namely,  What  are 
the  relative  values  of  learning  by  reading  as  compared  to  learning 
by  recitation  in  the  case  of  school  children  working  under  school 
conditions  and  with  the  ordinary  school-room  methods  of  attack? 
So  far  as  practicable,  everything  was  done  to  secure  normal  condi- 
tions for  the  work.  The  details  concerning  subjects,  materials, 
methods  of  study,  and  computation  of  results  will  now  be  con- 
sidered. 

Experiments  were  conducted  with  adult  subjects  as  well,  the 
data  from  which  will  be  used  for  comparative  purposes  and  for 
purposes  of  determining  more  exactly  the  functions  operative  in 
the  two  methods  of  study.  For  the  sake  of  convenience,  the  experi- 
ments upon  adults  will  be  described  in  a  later  section  where  the 
results  are  presented. 

The  Subjects 

The  subjects  used  were  pupils  of  a  grammar  school  of  Oakland, 
California.  The  members  of  the  first,  fourth,  sixth,  and  eighth 
grades  acted  as  subjects  for  the  experiments  in  which  the  nonsense 
syllables  were  used,  and  the  third,  fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  and  eighth 
grades  for  the  tests  with  sense  material.  Each  class  consisted  of 
from  forty  to  forty-five  pupils. 

The  school  in  which  the  experiments  were  conducted  is  situated 
in  a  residential  suburb  of  Oakland  and  draws  its  pupils  from  the 
homes  of  business  men  and  artisans  of  moderate  means.  In  general 
the  school  stands  in  the  first  class. 

As  will  be  explained  later  in  detail,  the  pupils  were  grouped  by 
grades  rather  than  by  age  for  the  tests.  The  following  table  sum- 
marizes the  distribution  of  the  members  of  the  several  grades 
according  to  age. 

Materials  Used 

The  materials  were  of  two  sorts,  senseless,  non-connected  material 
and  connected,  sense  material  in  the  form  of  biographies.  The 
nonsense  syllables  were  constructed  in  a  manner  similar  to  that  of 


RECITATION   AS    A    FACTOR    IX    MEMORIZING 


Age  in  years 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

ii 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Grade  i 

24 

13 

4 

Grade  3 

I 

ii 

21 

8 

I 

Grade  4 

5 

16 

ii 

4 

I 

Grade  5 

4 

17 

12 

4 

i 

I 

Grade  6 

2 

7 

13 

9 

2 

I 

I 

i 

Grade  8 

i 

8 

13 

12 

7 

Miiller  and  Schumann.1  The  sense  material  was  constructed  by 
the  writer  from  material  found  in  J.  McKeen  Cattell's  American 
Men  of  Science  and  Who's  Who  in  America.  Samples  are  appended. 
While  this  material  is  senseful  and  connected,  the  organization  of 
different  parts  of  the  whole  is  not  so  complete  and  systematic  as 
would  be  generally  found  in  poetry  or  prose,  in  which  the  ideas  are 
more  closely  related  and  the  material  more  closely  unified  by 
rhythms,  accents,  and  natural  pauses.  This  biographical  form  of 
material  was  used  because  it  was  desirable  to  approximate  the  kind 
of  material  that  the  pupils  were  accustomed  to  study  in  their 
regular  history,  geography,  or  grammar  lessons. 

The  nonsense  syllables  were  mimeographed  in  vertical  columns  on 
cards  and  were  handed  out  one  to  each  student.  The  sense  material  was 
mimeographed  on  sheets  which  were  likewise  distributed  to  the  pupils. 

Preliminary  tests  were  conducted  in  order  to  determine  the 
amount  and  difficulty  of  the  material  to  include  in  the  lesson  as 
well  as  to  give  the  subjects  some  preliminary  practice  in  the  tests 
before  the  actual  experimentation  began.  The  kind  and  amount  of 
material  was  arranged  so  that  the  lesson  was  somewhat  too  large 
for  the  best  students  to  master  in  the  time  allotted. 

In  the  case  of  nonsense  syllables,  the  series  contained  for  the 
eighth  grade  sixteen  syllables;  for  the  sixth,  fifteen;  and  for  the 
fourth,  fourteen.  The  pupils  of  the  first  grade  were  unable  to  read 
or  write  these  syllables,  so  the  teacher  kindly  constructed  series  of 
twelve  syllables  of  a  kind  they  were  accustomed  to  manipulating, 
such  as  ad,  en,  ig,  op,  ot,  etc.  These  syllables  were  written  with  a 
black  crayon  by  the  teacher  on  large  strips  of  heavy  paper. 

The  sense  material  was  also  arranged  to  suit  the  capacities  of 
the  different  classes.  For  the  eighth  grade  the  biographies  of  five 
men  served  as  a  lesson;  for  the  sixth  and  fifth  grades,  the  same 
biographies  for  but  four  men  were  used.  For  the  fourth  grade 
easier  biographies  of  four  boys  were  used ;  while  for  the  third  grade, 
the  biographies  of  three  boys  sufficed.  Samples  of  the  material  are 
appended. 

1  Described  by  Meumann  in  The  Psychology  of  Learning,  pp.  365-368. 


26  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR    IN   MEMORIZING 

The  following  is  a  sample  of  the  material  used  by  the  fifth,  sixth, 

and  eighth  grades: 

JAMES  CHURCH,  born  in  Michigan,  February  15,  1869.  Studied  in  Munich,  and 
later  studied  Forestry  and  Agriculture.  Director  of  Mt.  Rose  Weather 
Observatory  in  1906.  Studied  evaporation  of  snow,  water  content,  and  frost. 

JOHN  CLARK,  born  in  Indiana,  June  4,  1867.  Studied  Surgery  and  became  a 
doctor  in  Philadelphia.  Taught  at  Johns  Hopkins.  Has  visited  Italy  and 
Russia.  Has  a  brother  in  Vancouver. 

MORTON  CLOVER,  born  in  Ohio,  April  25,  1875.  Studied  Chemistry  at  Michigan. 
Worked  in  Manila  for  eight  years.  Wrote  articles  on  the  content  of  dog- 
wood, of  sugar,  and  acids.  Now  lives  in  Detroit. 

CLARENCE  CORY,  born  in  Indiana,  September  4,  1872.  Studied  in  Purdue  and 
Cornell  Universities.  Now  lives  in  Berkeley.  Is  Professor  of  Engineering 
and  Dean  of  Mechanics.  Since  1901  has  been  Consulting  Engineer  of  San 
Francisco.  Is  a  member  of  the  British  Institute. 

GEORGE  CURTIS,  born  in  Massachusetts,  July  10,  1872.  Studied  at  Harvard  on 
Geography.  Won  Gold  Medals  at  Paris  in  1900.  Member  of  Boston  Scien- 
tific Society.  Went  on  the  Dixie  Expedition  in  1902. 

The  following  is  a  sample  of  the  material  used  by  the  third  and 

fourth  grades : 

HARRY,  is  14  years  old.  His  father  is  a  farmer.  Around  the  farm  are  red  stones, 
black-berry  bushes,  red  clay,  green  clover,  and  small  trees.  Harry  is  in  the 
eighth  grade,  and  is  tall  and  slender.  He  likes  dancing  and  singing. 

JAMES,  was  born  in  June,  1905.  He  is  going  to  be  a  carpenter.  He  can  make  a 
chair,  a  stool,  a  box,  a  gate,  and  a  window.  His  mother  has  white  hair  and 
wears  a  black  dress.  His  father  is  fifty-five  years  old. 

HAROLD,  was  born  in  New  York.  He  came  to  California  when  six  years  old.  He 
is  now  fifteen  years  old  and  has  a  gun,  a  bicycle,  a  kite,  a  pair  of  skates,  and 
a  baseball  suit.  He  is  going  to  be  a  lawyer  and  live  in  Seattle. 

FRED,  was  born  in  March,  1898.  He  lives  on  3ist  and  Parker  Streets.  He 
goes  to  business  college.  He  is  tall,  has  black  hair  and  blue  eyes,  wears  a 
gray  suit  and  brown  necktie.  His  home  is  made  of  brick  and  granite. 

Since,  as  will  be  seen  later,  the  same  sort  of  tests  were  repeated 
several  times,  it  was  necessary  to  construct  different  texts  equal  in 
number  to  the  tests  given.2  An  attempt  was  made,  of  course,  to 
make  the  various  texts  of  equal  difficulty,  but  as  is  usually  the  case, 
they  probably  vary  considerably.  That  such  differences  in  diffi- 
culty as  may  exist  will  not  invalidate  the  results  to  any  considerable 
extent,  will  be  made  clear  later. 

Method  of  Conducting  the  Tests 

Several  very  conspicuous  sources  of  error  are  to  be  contended 
with  in  experimental  work  of  the  present  sort.  That  such  errors 
have  found  their  way  into  the  work  of  previous  investigators  on  this 
topic,  has  already  been  pointed  out.  The  more  important  sources 
of  error  are  as  follows : 

2  In  the  case  of  nonsense  material  five  tests  and  five  texts  were  used ;  in  the  case  of  sense  ma- 
terial six  tests  and  an  equal  number  of  texts. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  27 

(a)  Practice  effects.     In  a  series  of  five  or  six  practice  periods  of 
from  five  to  ten  minutes  each,  it  would  be  expected  that  practice 
effects  would  be  considerable.    Some  of  the  earlier  studies  have  not 
taken  this  sufficiently  into  account. 

(b)  Unequal  difficulty  of  texts.    Since  one  individual  must  repeat 
a  similar  test  with  many  different  texts,  any  inequality  in  their 
difficulty  will  affect  the  results.     Even  series  of  nonsense  syllables 
may  differ  greatly  in  difficulty  for  different  individuals. 

(c)  Individual  differences.     In  the  case  of  most  of  the  earlier 
investigations  the  subjects  were  so  few  that  individual  peculiarities 
may  have  played  a  large  role. 

(d)  Diurnal  variations  in  efficiency  and  fatigue.     It  is  imperative 
that  comparative  experiments  should  be  conducted  at  the  same 
hour  of  the  day  with  subjects  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  same  state 
of  physical  fitness,  unless  some  adequate  estimate  of  these  influences 
be  introduced  as  a  check.     In  this  respect  nearly  all  of  the  earlier 
investigators  have  been  negligent. 

In  order  to  eliminate,  as  far  as  possible,  the  effects  of  such  sources 
of  error,  the  method  described  below  was  employed  in  the  work.3 

A  class,  consisting  of  forty  or  more  pupils  on  the  average,  was 
divided  into  a  number  of  sections  or  squads,4  the  number  of  squads, 
for  reasons  which  will  be  evident,  being  made  equal  to  the  number 
of  methods  of  study  that  were  tested.  Each  squad  thus  consisted 
of  seven  or  eight  pupils,  the  personnel  remaining  unchanged  through- 
out. Different  texts,  of  as  nearly  equal  difficulty  as  possible,  were 
of  necessity  used.  A  particular  squad  was  tested  but  once  on  a 
single  day,  and  to  complete  the  series  for  each  squad  required  five 
or  six  days.  The  accompanying  table  shows  in  detail  the  manner 
in  which  the  tests  were  conducted.  The  procedure  was  as  follows: 
At  nine  a.  m.  of  the  first  day,  squad  one  was  given  its  first  test 
under  method  one,5  using  text  one.  Immediately  after,  squad  two 
studied  the  same  text,  according  to  method  two;  then  squad  three 
worked  under  method  three  and  so  on.  On  the  next  day,  squad 
three  was  taken  out  at  the  first  hour  and  studied  text  two  according 
to  method  two ;  at  the  next  hour  squad  four  worked  under  method 
three  with  the  same  text  and  so  on.  Thus  the  squads  progressed, 
during  the  five  days,  through  all  the  trials,  texts,  methods,  and 
hours.  The  outcome,  as  shown  under  the  column  indicated  'Total' 
is  that  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  methods  employed,  which  is 
the  only  factor  with  which  we  are  concerned;  all  other  influences 
are  balanced  or  neutralized. 

3  The  first  grade  was  handled  as  a  whole  and  not  by  squads  as  were  the  others.    To  be  taken  into 
new  surroundings  under  the  charge  of  a  stranger  proved  to  be  too  disturbing  for  these  little  children. 

4  Five  for  the  learning  of  nonsense  material,  six  for  the  learning  of  sense  material. 
*  'Method'  refers  to  the  manner  in  which  the  material  was  studied,  see  p.  30. 


28 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


Differences  in  practice  effects  are  neutralized  because  the  sum 
total  of  practice  for  any  one  method  is  the  same  as  for  all  others. 
Individual  differences  are  neutralized  because  each  subject  has 
studied  under  each  method,  and  no  one  more  than  once.  The  errors 
arising  from  differences  in  the  difficulty  of  the  texts  are  avoided, 
because  each  method  has  to  its  credit  one  group  working  with  each 
of  the  six  texts.  The  influences  of  diurnal  variations  in  efficiency  or 


Day  i 

Day  2 

Days 

Day  4 

Day  5 

Total  6 

Method  I 

Squad  I 
Trial     I 
Hour    A 
Text     i 

Squad  2 
Trial    2 
Hour    E 
Text     2 

Squad  3 
Trial    3 
Hour    D 
Text     3 

Squad  4 
Trial    4 
Hour    C 
Text     4 

Squad  5 
Trial    5 
Hour    B 

Text     5 

All  squads 
All  trials 
All  hours 
All  texts 

Method  2 

Squad  2 
Trial     i 
Hour    B 
Text     i 

Squad  3 
Trial    2 
Hour    A 
Text     2 

Squad  4 
Trial    3 
Hour    E 
Text     3 

Squad  5 
Trial    4 
Hour    D 
Text     4 

Squad  I 
Trial    5 
Hour    C 
Text     5 

All  squads 
All  trials 
All  hours 
All  texts 

Method  3 

Squad  3 
Trial     i 
Hour    C 
Text     I 

Squad  4 
Trial    2 
Hour    B 
Text     2 

Squad  5 
Trial    3 
Hour    A 
Text     3 

Squad  I 
Trial    4 
Hour    E 
Text     4 

Squad  2 
Trial    5 
Hour    D 
Text     5 

All  squads 
All  trials 
All  hours 
All  texts 

Method  4 

Squad  4 
Trial     I 
Hour    D 
Text     i 

Squad  5 
Trial    2 
Hour    C 
Text     2 

Squad  I 
Trial    3 
Hour    B 
Text     3 

Squad  2 
Trial    4 
Hour    A 
Text     4 

Squad  3 
Trial    5 
Hour    E 
Text     5 

All  squads 
All  trials 
All  hours 
All  texts 

Method  5 

Squad  5 
Trial     i 
Hour    E 
Text     i 

Squad  I 
Trial    2 
Hour    D 
Text     2 

Squad  2 
Trial    3 
Hour    C 
Text     3 

Squad  3 
Trial    4 
Hour    B 
Text     4 

Squad  4 
Trial    5 
Hour    A 
Text     5 

All  squads 
All  trials 
All  hours 
All  texts 

fatigue  are  neutralized,  since  each  method  has  been  tried  by  one 
squad  working  at  each  of  the  different  hours. 

Almost  ideal  arrangements  were  made  for  conducting  the  tests.7 
In  a  well  lighted  and  well  ventilated  room  about  twenty-two  by 
fourteen  feet  in  size,  a  library  table  large  enough  to  seat  about  a 
dozen  people  was  provided.  The  situation  of  the  room  was  such 
that  practically  all  noise  and  distractions  of  whatever  kind  were 
avoided.  Care  was  taken  to  keep  the  physical  conditions  of  the 
room  as  constant  and  comfortable  as  possible.  Fresh  air  was  kept 
in  circulation,  an  abundance  of  light  was  admitted,  and  the  tem- 
perature was  kept  constantly  between  fifty-seven  and  sixty  degrees 
Fahrenheit. 

6  In  the  case  of  sense  material,  six  methods,  squads,  texts,  etc.,  were  used  instead  of  five. 

7  For  this  I  am  greatly  indebted  to  the  school  principal,  Mr.  N.  Ricciardi. 


RECITATION    A&    A    FACTOR    IN    MEMORIZING  29 

Since  there  were  but  seven  or  eight  pupils  undergoing  a  test  at  a 
time,  the  experimenter  who  stood  at  the  head  of  the  table  could 
easily  keep  an  eye  on  the  work  of  each  individual.  Any  attempt  on 
the  part  of  a  pupil  to  copy  from  another,  to  loaf,  or  use  improper 
methods  of  any  sort,  could  be  instantly  detected.  Such  policing 
was  quite  unnecessary  and  such  violations  of  rules  as  did  occur  were 
in  most  cases  unintentional.  However,  such  factors  which  might 
result  in  the  unreliability  of  the  data  were  urgently  sought,  and  in 
cases  where  such  an  unreliability  was  known  or  suspected,  the 
entire  data  of  that  child  were  thrown  out.  In  addition  to  the  obser- 
vations of  the  writer,  the  opinion  of  the  teacher,  especially  with 
reference  to  doubtful  cases,  was  sought  and  freely  obtained.  Each 
teacher  listed  the  pupils  in  her  room  according  to  the  following 
request,  "Please  list  your  estimates  of  the  intelligence  of  the  pupils 
in  your  room,  in  order  of  rank,  putting  the  most  intelligent  as 
Number  one,  -  — .  Use  your  own  methods  of  estimating  and  your 
own  conception  of  what  intelligence  is.  Please  do  not,  however, 
make  it  a  mere  record  of  class  standing  according  to  grades  received, 
and  mere  maturity  should  not  be  considered."  The  teachers  also 
fulfilled  a  request  to  give  the  names  "of  such  pupils  that  you  think 
on  account  of  feeble  intelligence  or  inattentiveness,  lack  of  persis- 
tence, indolence  or  inclination  toward  dishonesty  in  work,  etc., 
would  be  unreliable  subjects  for  experimental  purposes."  The  teach- 
ers were  consulted  also  in  particular  cases  when  the  occasion  arose. 

As  a  result  of  these  precautionary  measures  the  work  of  a  few 
pupils  was  discarded.  The  following  were  the  chief  factors  which 
seemed  to  justify  discarding  a  pupil's  data: 

First.  Absence  from  one  of  the  tests.  In  case  a  pupil  missed  one  or 
more  of  the  tests,  his  entire  work  was  discarded.  This  was  necessary 
because  in  succeeding  tests  he  would  be  one  or  more  stages  behind 
in  practice.  The  absentees  on  return  were  allowed  to  continue  the 
work  without  being  told  that  the  data  would  not  be  used,  as  a  pre- 
caution against  creating  any  ill  feeling  among  the  pupils. 

Second.  Copying  from  others  or  using  unfair  methods  of  any  sort. 
Intentional  or  unintentional  disregard  of  rules  was  very  rare. 

Third.  Lack  of  interest  or  loafing.  Occasionally  a  pupil  from  lack 
of  interest  or  less  worthy  motives,  felt  inclined  to  be  balky  or  to 
'quit'  for  a  moment  in  the  midst  of  a  test.  The  data  of  such  were 
discarded. 

Fourth.  Mental  defectives.  A  few  pupils  were  found  to  be  marked- 
ly below  the  average  in  the  test  work.  Consultation  with  the  teacher 
confirmed  the  suspicion  of  sub-normality  and  the  data  of  such  were 
discarded,  although  they  went  through  the  work  with  the  other 
pupils. 


3O  RECITATION    AS   A    FACTOR    IN    MEMORIZING 

Fifth.  Physical  defectives.  Bad  cases  of  eye  defects,  weakness 
from  previous  illness,  and  school-yard  accidents  occasionally  inter- 
fered with  maximal  performance  to  such  an  extent  that  the  data 
were  excluded. 

On  the  whole,  however,  such  cases  were  very  rare  and  the  spirit 
among  the  pupils  was  of  the  finest.  A  keen  spirit  of  competition 
arose  with  reference  both  to  an  individual's  own  previous  record 
and  to  the  records  of  other  individuals,  such  that  in  nearly  every 
case  the  results  were  the  products  of  the  pupils'  very  best  endeavors. 
The  number  of  pupils  who  completed  all  of  the  tests  in  a  satisfactory 
manner  ranged  from  thirty-seven  to  forty-one  in  the  various  grades. 

Methods  of  Studying 

A  single  squad  having  been  seated  at  the  table  in  the  separate 
room,  a  copy  of  the  material  was  passed  out  face  downward  before 
each  pupil,  and  the  following  instructions  were  given:  "On  each  of 
these  cards  is  a  list  of  nonsense  words  [show  a  sample].  They  are 
called  nonsense  words  because  in  English  they  have  no  meaning. 
Now  the  object  of  the  test  today  is  to  see  how  many  of  these  words 
you  can  learn  in  a  certain  short  time. 

"We  will  proceed  like  this.  I  will  give  you  two  signals  to  start. 
At  'Ready'  you  take  the  card  at  the  corner  like  this  and  at  'Go' 
you  turn  the  card  over  and  begin  to  study. 

"Now  you  are  going  to  study  for  a  while  in  one  way  and  then 
later  you  are  going  to  study  in  a  very  different  way.  To  begin  with 
you  are  to  study  by  reading  this  list  of  words  over  and  over  from 
beginning  to  end  [illustrate].  Remember  you  are  to  read  only. 
You  should  never  look  away  from  the  paper;  never  close  your  eyes 
to  see  if  you  can  say  the  words;  in  fact  never  say  a  single  word 
unless  you  are  actually  looking  at  it,  actually  reading  it.  Remember 
you  are  to  read  through  from  the  first  to  the  last  every  time. 

"After  you  have  read  the  words  through  and  through  in  this  way 
for  a  while,  I  am  going  to  give  you  a  signal  'Recite'.  When  I  say 
'Recite'  you  are  to  hold  your  paper  in  front  of  you  so  that  when 
you  are  looking  straight  ahead,  you  look  over  the  top  of  it  and  you 
can  see  it  by  glancing  downward  a  little  like  this.  Now  you  are  to 
try  to  say  to  yourselves  as  many  of  the  syllables  as  you  can  without 
looking  at  the  card.  When  you  cannot  remember  the  next  word 
look  down  at  your  card  and  then  go  on  saying  as  many  of  them  as 
possible  without  looking.  Glance  at  the  card  again  whenever  you 
cannot  remember.  Go  through  the  list  from  the  first  word  to  the 
last  in  this  way  and  continue  until  the  word  'Time*  is  given. 
Remember  you  are  not  to  look  at  the  words  unless  you  absolutely 
have  to. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


"When  the  learning  period  is  over  I  am  going  to  ask  you  to  write 
as  many  of  these  words  as  you  can." 

It  should  be  remembered  that  every  class  had  received  previous 
practice  in  the  learning.  The  first  grade  had  been  given  two  trial 
tests  of  five  minutes  each,  and  every  other  grade  one  or  two  trials 
of  eight  minutes  each,  the  data  from  which  were  not  used. 

Following  is  a  table  showing  the  absolute  and  relative  amounts 
of  time  devoted  to  reading  and  to  recitation  in  each  method. 

NONSENSE  MATERIAL 

Grade  one 


Method 

Time  of  reading 

Time  of  recitation 

Per  cent,  reading 

Per  cent,  recitation 

I 

5' 

o' 

100 

0 

2 

4' 

I' 

80 

2O 

3 

3' 

2' 

60 

40 

4 

2' 

3' 

40 

60 

5 

I' 

4' 

20 

80 

Grades  four,  six,  and  eight 


I 

9' 

0 

100 

o 

2 

7'I2" 

i'48* 

80 

20 

3 

5'24* 

3>* 

60 

40 

4 

3'36* 

5'24" 

40 

60 

5 

i  '48' 

7'I2' 

20 

80 

SENSE  MATERIAL 
Grade  three 


Method 

Time  of  reading 

Time  of  recitation 

Per  cent,  reading 

Per  cent,  recitation 

I 

7'30' 

0 

100 

O 

2 

6' 

I  '30' 

80 

2O 

3 

4'30* 

3' 

60 

40 

4 

3' 

4'3<>' 

40 

60 

5 

i  '30" 

6' 

20 

80 

6 

45" 

6'45' 

IO 

90 

Grades  four,  five,  six,  and  eight 


I 

9' 

o 

IOO 

0 

2 

7'I2' 

i  '48' 

80 

20 

3 

5'24" 

3>' 

60 

40 

4 

3'36' 

5'24' 

40 

60 

5 

i  '48' 

7'I2' 

20 

80 

6 

54' 

8'o6' 

10 

90 

32  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR    IN   MEMORIZING 

The  study  period  was  made  somewhat  shorter  for  the  first  and 
third  grades,  because  it  was  found  that  steady  application  for  longer 
periods  was  quite  fatiguing. 

At  the  end  of  each  study  period  the  pupils  promptly  placed  the 
text  papers  face  downward  and  began  at  once  to  write  the  material 
upon  sheets  that  were  provided.  They  were  instructed  to  give  the 
material  in  the  original  order  as  far  as  possible.  In  the  case  of 
nonsense  syllables,  the  recall  was  pure  reproduction,  but  when  the 
sense  material  was  used,  the  names  of  the  individuals  whose  biog- 
raphies were  studied  were  written  on  the  board  in  proper  order. 
This  was  the  only  aid  that  was  given.  Ample  time  was  allotted  in 
which  to  write  the  material  remembered. 

Three  or  four  hours  later,  tests  for  retention  were  given.  The 
test  consisted  in  simply  asking  the  pupils  to  write,  as  before,  all 
the  material  they  could  remember.  No  aids  were  given  except 
that  the  names,  in  the  case  of  sense  material,  were  written  on  the 
board  as  in  the  immediate  test. 

Notes  were  kept  of  all  manifestations  of  the  children's  work 
such  as  movements  of  the  lips,  whisperings,  rhythmical  move- 
ments of  the  head,  or  hands  or  feet,  tappings  of  the  fingers, 
directions  of  the  gaze,  etc.,  in  fact,  of  all  appearances  which 
might  be  of  later  service  in  interpreting  the  results.  The  judg- 
ments of  the  pupils  were  frequently  called  for  upon  such  mat- 
ters as  the  methods  which  they  liked  or  disliked,  why  the  non- 
sense syllables  were  hard  to  learn  and  the  like.  These  will  be 
dealt  with  later. 

The  method  thus  far  described  applies  only  to  the  work  with  the 
school  children.  Different  methods  were  employed  upon  the  adult 
subjects  and  they  can  most  conveniently  be  described  on  a  later 
page  where  the  results  are  presented. 

TREATMENT  OF  THE  DATA 

Method  of  scoring  the  nonsense  syllables.  The  nonsense  syl- 
lables were  scored  by  giving  three  points  for  a  syllable  correct  in 
form  and  position ;  two  points  for  a  syllable  correct  in  position  with 
one  letter  incorrect;  two  points  for  a  syllable  correct  in  form  but 
not  in  correct  position;  one  point  for  a  syllable  with  two  letters 
correct  but  in  wrong  position.  For  example: 

Correct  list  Reproduced  list 
pib  pib 

bah  dah 

rem  bug 

lor  rem 

cug  lag 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IX   MEMORIZING  33 

Although  more  exact  methods  of  scoring  nonsense  syllables  are 
available,  it  was  thought  that  the  additional  precision  that  might 
be  obtained  by  their  use  would  scarcely  justify  the  additional  labor 
involved. 

All  of  the  nonsense  syllables  were  scored  by  a  person  who  had  no 
acquaintance  with  the  nature  of  the  experiment.  In  order  to  test 
the  personal  equation  as  manifest  in  the  scoring,  a  set  of  forty  lists 
were  graded  by  two  individuals,  neither  being  aware  that  the  lists 
were  to  be,  or  had  been,  corrected  by  another.  The  variations  were 
found  to  be  very  small  and  due  to  variable  errors  so  that  the  averages 
were  about  the  same.  The  average  score  for  forty  papers  was  for 
one  grader  22.81,  for  the  other  22.88.  From  these  figures  the  P.  E. 

A.  D.  dis. 

was  computed  by  means  of  the  formula  P.  E.  =  .84435 ~ 

Vn 

The  P.  E.  thus  determined  is  0.021.  The  personal  factor  involved 
in  the  scoring  of  results  is  thus  too  small  to  be  of  significance. 

The  material  of  the  first  grade  pupils  (two  letter  syllables)  was 
graded  by  simply  counting  the  number  of  syllables  that  were 
correct  in  spelling.  These  children  had  had  but  little  experience  in 
writing  on  paper  and  as  a  consequence  their  syllables  were  mixed 
up  so  badly  that  it  was  impossible  in  many  cases  to  be  sure  what 
order  was  intended.  Consequently,  correctness  in  form,  only,  was 
considered. 

Method  of  scoring  the  sense  material.  The  sense  material  was 
scored  by  dividing  the  original  texts  into  details,  ideas,  or  facts  that 
were  mentioned,  to  serve  as  a  guide.  One  credit  was  given  for  the 
correct  reproduction  of  each  of  these  'details'  when  they  fell  under 
the  proper  name.  When  a  detail,  such  as  a  birthplace,  was  correctly 
reproduced  but  applied  to  the  wrong  person,  one-half  a  unit  was 
given.  In  some  cases  the  credits  of  one-half  or  three-fourths  were 
given  to  details  or  facts  partly  correct,  depending  upon  the  judg- 
ment of  the  reader. 

Part  of  the  sense  material  was  scored  by  one  individual  and  part 
by  another,  neither  of  whom  was  acquainted  with  the  experiments 
in  general.  To  test  the  reliability  of  the  judgments,  forty  papers 
were  scored  independently  by  each.  Variations  of  small  magnitude 
but  greater  than  for  the  nonsense  material  were  found,  but  these 
were  due  to  variable  errors  that  compensated  each  other  in  the 
long  run,  producing  on  an  average  of  forty  scores  very  slight  differ- 
ences. The  P.  E.,  computed  as  above,  is  0.015.  Tms  P-  E-  is  so 
small  in  comparison  with  the  P.  E.'s  of  the  averages  that  it  has  not 
been  taken  into  consideration  in  the  final  computations  of  the 
results. 


34  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

METHODS  OF  COMPUTING  THE  RESULTS 

The  results  show  the  average  scores  based  upon  the  methods  of 
grading  just  mentioned.  To  be  more  accurate,  the  tables  show  a 
grand  average  of  the  averages  of  the  several  squads  for  each  method 
of  study.  The  work  of  several  pupils,  for  various  reasons  that  have 
been  cited,  was  rejected,  with  the  result  that  the  final  number  of 
individuals  in  some  squads  is  greater  than  that  in  others.  Since, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  any  particular  method,  the  practice  effects 
of  each  squad  differed  from  every  other,  to  permit  the  results  of  a 
squad  to  enter  the  final  average  with  full  weight,  would  distort  the 
figures  in  a  degree  amounting  to  the  average  difference  in  efficiency 
due  to  the  greater  amount  of  practice  of  the  one  over  the  other. 
This  overweighting  was  avoided  by  averaging  each  squad  separately 
and  then  making  an  average  of  these  figures. 

For  the  same  reason  the  P.  E.'s  could  not  be  computed  in  the 
regular  manner  but  must  be  based  upon  the  results  of  the  individual 
squads.  Assuming  that  the  averages  of  the  several  squads  would  be 
equal  except  for  differences  due  to  practice,  fatigue,  and  diurnal 
variations,  the  deviations  of  the  figures  within  each  squad  from  the 
average  of  that  squad  were  computed.  A  sum  of  the  deviations  for 
all  individuals  from  the  average  of  their  squad  was  thus  obtained 
and  divided  by  the  total  number  of  individuals  in  the  class,  thus 
giving  the  Average  Deviation.  The  P.  E.'s  were  then  computed 
according  to  the  formula:  8 

A.  D.  dis. 
P.  E.  tr.  av.  -  obt.  av.  =  0.8453  - 

Vn 

8  See  Thorndike,  E.  L.,  Mental  and  Social  Measurements,  New  York,  1912,  pp.  186  ff. 


IV 
QUANTITATIVE   RESULTS 

It  was  pointed  out  earlier  that  the  amount  of  material  given  as  a 
lesson  was  slightly  greater  than  the  best  students  could  learn  in  the 
time  allotted.  Learning  was  never  complete,  although  in  the  case 
of  many  individuals  it  was  nearly  so.  With  nonsense  syllables  as 
material,  the  average  scores  for  the  best  methods  are  for  different 
classes  from  fifty  to  seventy- three  per  cent,  of  the  highest  possible 
score.  For  the  sense  material,  the  best  average  scores  are  in  the 
neighborhood  of  forty  per  cent,  of  the  highest  possible  scores.  This 
fact  should  be  kept  in  mind  during  the  consideration  of  the  results 
which  follow.  For  convenience  of  expression,  we  shall  speak  of 
'methods'  in  which  there  was  a  'combination  of  twenty  per  cent, 
reading  with  eighty  per  cent,  recitation',  etc.,  but  it  must  be 
remembered  that  such  expressions  have  a  strictly  local  meaning,  for 
several  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  such  'combinations'  lead  only 
to  partial  learning  of  the  data.  Perhaps  the  same  combination 
would  lead  to  very  different  results  if  applied  to  the  time  required 
to  completely  learn  the  lesson.  A  second  consideration  is  that  a 
'combination'  has  reference  only  to  the  particular  kind  and  the 
particular  amount  of  material  here  used.  The  optimum  combina- 
tion would  doubtless  be  different  according  to  the  difficulty  and 
length  of  the  lesson.  These  matters  will  be  given  more  considera- 
tion on  a  later  page. 

RESULTS  FOR  THE  LEARNING  OF  NONSENSE  SYLLABLES 
BY  CHILDREN 

Table  XVII  shows  the  results  of  the  immediate  test  for  nonsense 
syllables  in  the  form  of  average  with  P.  E.'s  computed  in  the 
manner  described  in  the  previous  chapter.  Table  XVIII  shows 
the  same  data  transformed  to  relative  scores  in  which  the  average 
of  each  class  for  all  five  methods  is  considered  100,  serving  as  a 
basis  for  the  other  scores.  The  P.  E.'s  were  changed  to  correspond. 
Figure  I  shows  graphically  the  data  of  Table  XVIII,  the  average 
being  denoted  by  the  heavy  line,  which  is  enclosed  within  two  light 
lines  representing  on  either  side  the  area  including  the  P.  E. 1 

For  the  fourth,  sixth,  and  eighth  grades  the  results  are  clear.  The 
results  for  Grade  one  were  a  disappointment  and  should  be  considered 

1  After  the  manner  originally  suggested  by  Professor  J.  McKeen  Cattell. 


RECITATION    AS   A    FACTOR    IN    MEMORIZING 


apart  from  the  others.  The  averages  for  this  grade  seem  to  indicate 
that  Method  Five,  in  which  the  amount  of  recitation  is  greatest,  pro- 
duces the  poorest  results  while  the  methods  involving  more  reading 
show  to  better  advantage.  The  P.  E.'s,  however,  show  the  averages 
not  to  be  highly  reliable  and  their  significance  is  slight.  One  reason 
for  this  may  lie  in  the  fact  that  a  less  refined  method  was  used  in 
the  case  of  this  grade  (see  p.  27).  In  all  probability,  moreover,  the 
inexperience  of  these  beginning  pupils  accounts  for  the  results  in  a 
large  measure.  They  were  simply  unable  to  adjust  themselves  to 


TABLE  XVII 

Showing  the  average  score  for  each  grade  for  the  various  methods  of 


study 


Method 

i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Combination  in  mins.  and  sees. 
Combination  in  per  cent. 

f  Lp'  Ro 
Lioo  Ro 

Lfi*' 

Ri'48" 
L8o  R20 

Ls'24* 
R3'36* 
L6o  R40 

L3'36' 
RS'24* 
L40  R6o 

Li'48' 

R?'l2' 

L20  R8o 

Grade  eight   Average  score 
P.  E. 

16.92 
0.6l 

23-86 
0.69 

25-79 
0.65 

27.28 

0.66 

35-51 

0.86 

Grade  six       Average  score 
P.  E. 

13-21 
0.61 

20.18 
0.84 

22.64 
0.60 

25-15 
0.91 

30.52 
1.07 

Grade  four     Average  score 
P.  E. 

9-45 
0-57 

12.  OO 
'     0.46 

16.10 
0.56 

16.95 
0-75 

20.03 
0.79 

Combination  in  mins.  and  sees. 
Combination  in  per  cent. 

Ls'Ro 
Lioo  Ro 

L4'Ri' 
L8o  R20 

L3'R2' 
L6o  R40 

L2'Ra' 
L4O  R6o 

Li'R4' 
L20  R8o 

Grade  one      Average  score 
P.  E. 

6.2 

0.22 

6.1 
0.27 

6.2 
O.2O 

5-6 

0.20 

4-7 
0.21 

TABLE  XVIII 

Showing  the  data  of  Table  X  VII  on  a  relative  basis 


Method 

i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Grade  eight   Relative  score 
P.  E. 

65.40 
2-37 

92.23 
2.69 

99.69 

2-53 

105-45 
2-57 

137-26 

3-35 

Grade  six       Relative  score 
P.  E. 

59-13 
2.74 

88.35 
3-78 

101.34 
2.70 

112.57 
4.09 

136.61 

4.81 

Grade  four     Relative  score 
P.  E. 

63.42 
3-42 

80.53 
2.76 

108.05 
3-36 

H3-75 
4-50 

134.42 

4-74 

Grade  one      Relative  score 
P.  E. 

107.64 
3-8o 

105.90 

4.67 

107.64 
3-46 

97.22 
3-46 

8i-59 
3-63 

Method        i 


RECITATION   AS   A    FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 
FIGURE  I 

Based  on  the  data  of  Tables  XVIII  and  XIX 
234 


37 


100% 


100% 


100% 


100% 


100% 


Grade  & 


Gmde  G 


Grade  4 


/Iveraae 


38  RECITATION  AS  A   FACTOR   IN  MEMORIZING 

the  experiment.  Many  employed  practically  the  same  methods  of 
study  throughout,  as  could  be  seen  from  observation  in  some  cases. 
Others  made  an  effort  to  follow  the  prescribed  directions  which 
often  resulted  in  poor  records,  especially  in  the  methods  in 
which  recitation  began  very  early.  A  great  deal  of  time  was  lost 
in  fruitless  endeavor  to  recall  syllables  that  were  not  as  yet  forth- 
coming. These  young  children  were  not  skilled  enough  in  testing 
their  knowledge  and  prompting  themselves  where  needed,  which 
probably  accounts  for  the  apparent  inferiority  of  the  results  obtained 
in  Methods  Four  and  Five,  in  which  the  reading  periods  were  short. 

For  the  fifth,  sixth  and  eighth  grades  the  results  are  convincing. 
The  averages  show  a  very  great  superiority  of  Method  Five,  in  which 
the  most  recitation  is  introduced,  over  Method  One  which  employs 
reading  only.  Twice  as  much  is  learned  by  the  former  as  by  the 
latter  method  in  the  same  time.  The  small  P.  E.'s  indicate  a  high 
reliability  of  these  extreme  differences,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  the 
same  thing  is  shown  by  all  three  classes.  The  graphs  (Figure  i) 
show  that  there  is  an  increase  in  the  amount  learned  as  the  relative 
amount  of  recitation  becomes  larger,  a  fact  shown  by  all  three 
classes.  The  amount  of  this  increase  is  not  constant,  however, 
being  marked  by  a  particularly  great  difference  between  Method  One 
which  permits  no  recitation  and  Method  Two  which  gave  twenty  per 
cent,  of  the  time  to  recitation.  The  effect  of  a  minute  and  a  half 
of  recitation  is  very  marked.  The  increase  in  effectiveness  is  fairly 
constant  from  Method  Two  to  Three  to  Four,  but  the  step  from  Four 
to  Five  is  somewhat  greater  than  any  one  of  these.  The  most 
probable  explanation  for  this  exceptional  score  in  the  case  of 
Method  Five  is  that  it  was  usually  productive  of  a  little  more 
enthusiasm  than  other  methods.  The  children  anticipated  this  as 
the  'record  breaking'  method. 

The  reliability  of  the  differences  between  the  methods  has  been 
computed  in  a  different  way,  as  shown  in  Table  XIX  and  displayed 
graphically  by  the  broken  line  curve  in  Figure  i.  This  table  shows 
the  averages  of  the  three  grades  (eighth,  sixth,  fifth)  for  each 
method  with  the  P.  E.'s  of  the  averages  computed  according  to 
the  formula : 2 

(7  dis. 
P.  E.  tr.  av.  -  obt.  av.  =  .6745       .- 

The  P.  E.'s  should  be  magnified  to  some  extent  in  this  table  for 
the  reason  that  the  number  of  cases  is  very  small  (three)  and  that 
influence  of  any  factor  tending  to  create  differences  between  the 
groups  considered,  for  example,  the  effects  of  maturity  or  length  of 

2  See  Thorndike,  E.  L.,  Mental  and  Social  Measurements,  p.  188  ff. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


39 


school  training,  would  make  the  P.  E.'s  larger.     However,  the  P. 
E.'s  are  still  very  small. 

TABLE  XIX 

Showing  the  average  percentile  scores  with  P.  E.'s  for  Grades  four,  five,  and  eight 


Method 

i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Average  score 
P.  E. 

62.65 

I.  01 

87.04 

1.88 

103-59 
1.40 

110.59 

I  45 

136.09 

0-45 

The  following  table  shows  more  plainly  the  differences  between 
the  various  methods  and  the  P.  E.'s  of  those  differences,  the  com- 
putation being  based  on  the  preceding  table.  The  formula  em- 
ployed for  obtaining  the  P.  E.  of  the  differences  is:3 


P.  E.  diff.  =  V(P.  E.  av.)2  +  (P.  E.  av.)2 

TABLE  XX 

Showing  the  differences  of  the  various  methods  in  percentages  with  the 
P.  E.'s  of  the  differences 


Differences  of  methods 

Differences  of  methods 

Differences  of  methods 

2—  I  =  24.39  *  P.  E.  2.  1  1 

3—  i  =  40.38  *  p.  E.I.  72 
4—  i  =  47.94*  P.  E.I.  76 
5—  i  =  73-44  *?•  E.I.  10 

3—  2=I5.99*P.E.2.34 
4—2=23.55*  P.  E.  2.37 
5—  2=  49.05*  P.  E.  1.93 

4—3=  7.  56*  P.  E.  2.01 
5—  3=33-o6*P.E.  1.47 
5—  4=  25.50*  P.  E.I.  52 

The  differences  are  all  conspicuous  and  reliable. 

Differences  in  results  among  classes 

A  glance  at  Figure  I  will  show  that  the  findings  for  Grades 
four,  six,  and  eight  are  very  similar.  In  all  grades  Method  Five  is 
about  twice  as  good  as  Method  One.  About  the  only  difference  is 
that  the  fourth  grade  does  not  do  well,  relatively,  with  very  short 
periods  of  recitation.  The  difference  in  percentages4  of  Method 
Two  (i'  48"  Recitation)  over  Method  One  (all  reading)  is  for  the 
eighth  grade  26.83  Per  cent.,  for  the  sixth  grade  29.22  per  cent.,  for 
the  fourth  grade  17.11  per  cent.  Grade  four  shows  the  slightest 
superiority  of  Method  Two  over  Method  One,  but  its  value  is  ren- 
dered somewhat  doubtful  since  the  sixth  grade  shows  a  slightly 
greater  superiority  than  does  Grade  eight.  Computing  the  superiority 
of  the  average  score  from  all  Methods  over  the  score  of  Method 

»  See  Thorndike  E.  L.,  op.  cit.  « Based  on  Table  XVIII. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


Two,  the  results  are:  Grade  eight,  a  superiority  of  7.73  per  cent.; 
Grade  six,  11.12  per  cent.,  and  Grade  four,  19.47  Per  cent.  From 
these  figures  it  appears  that  the  older  children  are  able  to  do  better, 
relatively,  with  the  short  recitation  periods. 

Summary 

To  summarize,  then,  it  may  be  stated :  (First)  that  for  the  learn- 
ing of  nonsense  material  by  children,  recitation  after  a  few  initial 
readings  is  of  much  greater  value  than  continued  readings.  (Second) 
That  after  preliminary  readings  for  i'  48",  the  more  quickly  the 
attempts  at  recitation  are  introduced,  the  better  results  will  be 
obtained.  (Third)  No  conspicuous  differences  appear  in  the  results 
for  the  different  classes  with  the  exception  of  Grade  one.  (Fourth) 
which  for  reasons  mentioned  on  p.  27  must  be  treated  as  a  distinct 
case. 

RESULTS   FOR   SENSE   MATERIAL 

Table  XXI  shows  the  results  of  the  immediate  test  for  sense 
material  in  the  form  of  average  scores.  Table  XXII  shows  the  same 
data  on  a  relative  basis  in  which  the  average  score  for  all  methods 

TABLE  XXI 

Showing  the  average  score  for  each  grade  for  the  various  methods  of  study  B 


Method 

i 

2 

3 

4 

s 

6 

Combination  in  mins.  and  sees. 
Combination  in  per  cent. 

f  LgRo 
Lioo  Ro 

L7'i2" 
Ri'48* 
L8o  R20 

L5'24' 
R3'36' 
L6o  R40 

L3'36" 
R5'24" 
L40  R6o 

Li'48* 
R7'i2* 
L20  R8o 

LS4" 
R8'o6' 
Lio  RQO 

Grade  eight  Average  score 
P.  E. 

20.77 
0.72 

22.39 
0.87 

24.84 
0.70 

24-95 
0.69 

25.28 
0.50 

23-75 
0.82 

Grade  six      Average  score 
P.  E. 

15-13 
0-75 

16-55 
0-59 

I8.0I 
0.69 

17.70 
0.68 

17.77 
0.82 

16.63 
0.68 

Grade  five    Average  score 
P.  E. 

11.79 
0.40 

13   95 
0-43 

15    21 
0.48 

I5-96 

0.56 

15-33 
0.50 

15-74 
0-55 

Grade  four   Average  score 
P.  E. 

14.61 

0.77 

16.91 

0.78 

16.36 

0.86 

18.81 
0.77 

17.62 
0.70 

17.20 
0.71 

Combination  in  mins.  and  sees. 
Combination  in  per  cent. 

f  L?'30* 
\      Ro 
Lioo  Ro 

L6' 
Ri'so" 
L8o  R20 

L4'30" 
IR3' 
L6o  R40 

L3' 

R4'3Q* 
L40  R6o 

Li'30* 
R6' 
L20  R8o 

L45" 
R6'45' 
Lio  Rpo 

Grade  three  Average  score 
P.  E. 

8.66 
0-39 

10-34 
0.49 

II.I8 
0.49 

14.12 
0.46 

13.10 
0.56 

I2.O9 

0-54 

5  The  highest  possible  score,  approximately,  is  for  Grade  eight,  60;  for  Grades  six,  five  and  four. 
48;   and  for  Grade  three,  36. 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


for  that  grade  equals  100.  The  P.  E.'s  are  computed  as  described 
above  (p.  34).  Figure  2  shows  graphically  the  data  of  Tables 
XXII  and  XXIII. 

TABLE  XXII 

Showing  the  data  of  Table  XXI  on  a  relative  basis 


Method 

i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

IOO.03 

3-43 

Grade  eight  Relative  score 
P.  E. 

87.78 
3  -oi 

94.62 

3  64 

104.98 
2-93 

105-45 
2.89 

106.80 
2.09 

Grade  six      Relative  score 
P.  E. 

89.21 
4.42 

97-58 
3.48 

IO6.I9 
4.09 

104.36 
4.01 

104.77 
4-83 

98.06 
4.01 

Grade  five    Relative  score 
P.  E. 

80.42 
2.72 

95-15 
2-93 

103.75 
3-27 

108.86 
3-81 

104-57 
3-41 

107.36 
3-75 

Grade  four    Relative  score 
P.  E. 

86.34 
4-54 

99-94 
4.60 

96.69 
5-07 

III  .17 

4-54 

104.13 
4-13 

101.65 
4.18 

Grade  three  Relative  score 
P.  E. 

74-78 
3-35 

89.29 
4.21 

96.54 
4.21 

121.93 
3-95 

113.12 
4-81 

104.40 
4.64 

A  glance  will  show  that  the  results  here  obtained  differ  from  those 
received  with  nonsense  material.  In  general  the  advantage  of 
reading  with  recitation  as  compared  to  reading  alone  is  less  great. 
Moreover  it  appears  that  introducing  the  recitation  too  early  proves 
to  be  of  no  value ;  in  fact,  for  the  lower  grades  it  may  prove  to  be  a 
positive  hindrance.  This  point  will  be  taken  up  later.  All  grades 
agree  in  showing  reading  alone  to  be  a  poor  method  of  study,  while 
a  combination  of  forty  per  cent,  reading  with  sixty  per  cent,  recita- 
tion seems  to  give  best  results. 

The  following  table  (XXIII)  shows  the  average  results  for  all 
classes  combined,  with  the  P.  E.;  the  methods  of  computation 
being  the  same  as  those  previously  described. 

TABLE  XXIII 

Showing  the  average  percentile  (relative]  score  for  all  grades  combined 


Method 

i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Relative  score 

83-71 

95-32 

101.63 

H0.35 

106.67 

102.30 

P.  E. 

1.64 

0.99 

1.26 

1.90 

I.  01 

0.74 

In  the  average  results,  Method  Four  seems  to  be  distinctly  superior 
to  Method  Three  and  possibly  superior  to  Methods  Five  and  Six.   In 


42  RECITATION  AS  A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

order  to  more  accurately  determine  the  reliability  of  the  differences 
between  the  methods,  Table  XXIV  was  computed  after  the  method 
earlier  described  (p.  38)  using  the  data  from  Table  XXIII. 


TABLE  XXIV 

Showing  the  differences  between  the  relative  scores  for  the  several 
methods  with  the  P.  E.  of  the  differences 


Differences  of  methods 

Differences  of  methods 

Differences  of  methods 

2  —  i=i2.6i=P.  E.  1.91 
3  —  i  =17.92=1=?.  E.  2.06 
4  —  i  =  26.64="=  P.  E.  2.50 
5  —  i  =22.96=*=?.  E.  1.92 
6—  i  =  i8.59±P.  E.  1.79 

3—2=  6.3  1  ±  P.  E.  i.  60 
4—  2  =  15.03  =-  P.  E.  2.14 
5—  2  =  11.35  ±  P.  E.  1-41 
6—2=  6.98=1=?.  E.  1.23 

4  —  3  =  8.72  =  P.  E.  2.27 
5  —  3  =  5.04  =  P.  E.  i.  6  1 
6—  3  =0.67  =  P.  E.  1.46 
5—  4  =  3.68  =  P.  E.  2.15 
6—  4  =  8.05  =*=  P.  E.  2.03 
6—  5  =4-37  ^P-  E.  1.25 

This  table  shows,  that  for  the  average  results,  every  method  is 
clearly  superior  to  Method  One  (all  reading),  the  smallest  difference, 
that  between  Methods  Two  and  One,  being  more  than  six  times  the 
P.  E.6  It  is  also  certain  that  every  method  except  Method  One  is 
superior  to  Method  Two,  the  smallest  superiority  being  four  times 
the  P.  E.  The  difference  between  Method  Three  and  Four  is  also 
quite  reliable,  being  four  times  the  P.  E.  The  superiority  of  Method 
Five  over  Method  Three  is  more  than  three  times  the  P.  E.;  while 
there  is  no  real  difference  between  Methods  Six  and  Three.  There  is 
no  evidence  that  Method  Four  is  superior  to  Method  Five,  but  Four 
is  superior  to  Six,  and  Five  is  also  superior  to  Six  by  small  but  re- 
liable differences. 

We  are  safe  in  concluding  then,  that  in  general,  Method  One, 
which  includes  no  recitation,  is  the  poorest  method,  while  Method 
Four  or  Five  is  the  best.  Method  Two  is  considerably  superior  to 
Method  One  and  Method  Three  is  better  than  Two.  That  is  to  say, 
the  best  results  are  obtained  when  the  recitation  is  introduced  after 
one  and  one-half  to  three  and  one-half  minutes  of  preliminary 
reading.  Beginning  earlier  or  later  than  this  leads  to  poorer 
results. 

Differences  in  results  among  the  classes 

Such  are  the  findings  in  general,  but  it  was  noted  earlier  that  the 
classes  differ  in  certain  respects.  These  differences  appear  quite 
clearly  in  Figure  2.  In  the  first  place,  the  difference  between  the 

6  It  should  be  repeated  that  the  P.  E.  should  be  very  large  for  the  reason  that  all  the  apparent 
differences  in  the  curves  for  the  various  classes  (see  Figure  2)  result  in  attenuation  of  the  P.  E. 


Method        i 


RECITATION  AS  A  FACTOR   IN  MEMORIZING 

FIGURE  2 

Based  on  the  data  of  Tables  XXII  and  XXIII 
2345 


43 


100% 


100% 


100% 


100% 


100% 


100% 


44  RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

best  and  the  poorest  method  is  greater  for  the  lower  grades.  The 
superiority  of  the  best  over  the  poorest  method  is: 

For  grade  eight      19.02  per  cent.     Average  for  8+  6  =  18.00 
For  grade  six         16.98  per  cent. 

For  grade  five       28.44  Per  cent. 

For  grade  four       24.83  per  cent.     Average  for  3  +  4  =  35.99 
For  grade  three     47.15  per  cent. 

The  differences  do  not  increase  uniformly  with  the  grades,  but  if  we 
average  the  differences  for  the  eighth  and  sixth  grades,  also  for  the 
third  and  fourth,  the  latter  figure  is  exactly  twice  the  former,  while 
the  fifth  grade  lies  midway.  The  older  children  are  doubtless  not 
so  badly  handicapped  by  the  lack  of  an  opportunity  to  recite;  or, 
stated  in  another  way,  the  younger  children  are  more  dependent 
upon  the  factors  involved  in  recitation  in  their  learning. 

Another  difference  also  appears.  Optimum  results  may  be  obtained 
by  introducing  recitation  earlier  in  the  period  in  the  case  of  the 
upper  grades.  For  Grades  five,  six,  and  eight  the  differences  between 
Methods  Three,  Four,  Five,  and  Six  are  nil  or  unreliably  small,  but  in 
the  case  of  Grade  four  the  difference  between  Methods  Six  and  Four 
is  9.52  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  6.08 ;  the  same  difference  for  grade  three 
being  17.53  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  6.0.  The  introduction  of  the  recita- 
tion period  too  early  has  a  deleterious  effect  upon  the  learning  of 
the  two  lower  grades.  The  probable  explanation  of  this  difference 
between  the  grades  is  to  be  found  in  the  better  adaptation  of  the 
older  or  more  experienced  learner  to  the  conditions  of  the  test. 
When  recitation  is  introduced  too  early,  the  younger  pupils  waste 
time  and  energy  in  fruitless  endeavor  to  recall  the  material.  Posi- 
tive errors  of  recall  are  probably  numerous  also  and  thus  retard  the 
learning.  The  older  pupils,  on  the  other  hand,  realizing  that  so 
early  an  attempt  at  recitation  would  be  unprofitable,  continue  for 
some  time  to  read,  or  divide  the  repetitions  between  reading  and 
recitation,  reciting  those  few  sections  which  can  be  recalled,  but 
referring  promptly  to  their  paper  when  the  material  is  not  forth- 
coming. Another  explanation  is  possible,  but  less  probable,  e.  g., 
that  the  results  are  due  to  a  real  difference  among  the  classes  in 
ability  to  make  rapid  headway  in  the  first  few  minutes  of  study. 
That  this  is  not  highly  probable  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  under 
optimum  conditions  all  classes  learned  approximately  the  same 
proportion  of  their  respective  lessons  in  the  given  time. 

A  final  difference  is  that  the  upper  grades,  in  comparison  with 
the  lower,  do  better  when  recitation  is  not  introduced  until  fairly 
late,  i.  e.,  when  the  proportion  of  reading  is  greater.  Table  XXII 
discloses  the  fact  that  for  Grades  six  and  eight  Method  Three  (sixty 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  45 

per  cent,  reading)  is  as  good  as  any  other,  but  for  Grades  three  and 
four,  Method  Three  is  considerably  inferior  to  Methods  Four,  Five, 
or  Six.  For  Grade  three  the  superiority  of  Method  Four  over  Method 
Three  is  25.39  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  5.65;  for  rade  Gfour,  14.48  per  cent. 
=*=  P.  E.  6.70.  Grade  five  lies  between  the  extremes,  showing  a 
small  (5.11  per  cent.)  but  scarcely  reliable  superiority  of  Method 
Four  over  Method  Three.  This  difference  cannot  easily  be  accounted 
for,  precisely,  with  the  evidence  at  hand.  It  is  probably  due  to  the 
greater  experience  of  the  more  advanced  students  in  learning 
material — history,  geography,  and  other  lessons — in  which  reading 
plays  a  very  important  part.  By  virtue  of  this  experience,  the 
older  children  were  more  skillful  in  employing  the  most  fruitful 
methods  of  attack  in  reading  which  virtually  amounted  to  less  pure 
reading,  i.  e.,  reading  which  was  in  some  degree  recitation.  The 
younger  children  stuck  more  strictly  to  pure  reading.  These 
matters,  however,  must  be  waived  to  a  later  consideration.  It  is 
only  necessary  here  to  suggest  that  such  class  differences,  whatever 
the  explanation  for  them  may  be,  are  of  marked  pedagogical 
importance. 

Summary  of  Results  for  Sense  Material 

1.  In  general,  best  results  are  obtained  by  introducing  recitation 
after  devoting  about  forty  per  cent,  of  the  time  to  reading.    Intro- 
ducing recitation  too  early  or  too  late  leads  to  poorer  results. 

2.  In  general,  the  optimum  combination  of  reading  and  recita- 
tion, under  the  conditions  of  the  present  tests,  shows  a  superiority 
over  reading  alone  by  about  thirty  per  cent. 

3.  The  lower  grades  differ  from  the  upper  grades  in  three  respects. 

a.  The  advantage  of  the  best  combination   of  reading  and 
recitation  over  the  method  of  learning  by  reading  alone  is  twice 
as  great  for  the  lower  grades,  the  average  for  grades  three  and 
four  being  35.99  per  cent,  as  compared  to  18.00  per  cent,  the 
average  for  grades  six  and  eight. 

b.  Introducing  recitation  earlier  than  the  stage  indicated  in 
(i)  above,  had  a  disadvantageous  effect  upon  the  learning  of  the 
lower  grades,  but  little  or  no  ill  effect  upon  the  work  of  the  upper 
grades. 

c.  The  upper  grades,  in  comparison  with  the  lower,  learn  more 
effectively  under  the  methods  involving  a  relatively  large  amount 
of  reading. 

RESULTS   AS    REGARDS    RETENTION   OF   NONSENSE   MATERIAL 

Tests  for  retention  of  nonsense  syllables  were  given  from  three  to 
four  hours  after  the  learning  period,  the  exact  intervals  varying  for 


46 


RECITATION  AS  A   FACTOR   IN  MEMORIZING 


different  classes  but  being  always  the  same  for  all  squads  of  any 
one  class.  The  pupils  were  simply  asked  to  write  down  in  proper 
order  all  the  syllables  they  could  remember.  It  is  impossible  to 
determine  the  unreliability  of  the  retention  results  due  to  review, 
intentional  or  otherwise,  on  the  part  of  the  pupils  during  the  inter- 
val between  the  learning  period  and  the  tests.  That  a  few  pupils 
did  review  the  material  during  the  interim  was  obvious  from  the 
fact  that  they  obtained  a  higher  score  in  the  retention  tests  than  in 
the  immediate  test.  Such  results  were,  of  course,  discarded.  It 
was  impossible  to  detect  other  cases  in  which  the  reviewing  was 
less  extensive.  With  the  exception  of  a  few  suspicious  cases,  the 
results  showed  little  or  no  indication  of  such  procedure.  An  effort 
in  the  way  of  appeal  from  teachers  and  the  experimenter  was  made 
to  discourage  such  practices,  and,  on  the  whole,  there  are  good 
reasons  for  believing  the  results,  aside  from  the  exceptions  men- 
tioned, are  quite  reliable  enough  for  broad  interpretation.  It  would 
be  unwise,  however,  to  give  the  data  much  weight  for  the  inter- 
pretation of  fine  differences,  such  as  the  differences  between  closely 
related  classes. 

Table  XXV  shows  the  results  in  the  form  of  averages  with  P.  E.'s 
computed  in  the  manner  previously  described.  Table  XXVI  like- 
wise shows  the  results  on  a  relative  basis. 


TABLE  XXV 

Showing  the  average  scores  obtained  in  the  retention  tests 


Method 

i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Grade  eight                 Average  score 
Interval  four  hours     P.  E. 

7.02 
0.42 

12-55 
0.78 

13-66 
0-57 

17-55 
0.67 

22.89 

0.88 

Grade  six                      Average  score 
Interval  three  hours   P.  E. 

5-23 
0-45 

7.12 

0-54 

9.91 
0.72 

12.58 
0.82 

» 

20.38 
1.19 

Grade  four                   Average  score 
Interval  three  hours   P.  E. 

3-49 
0.38 

5-89 
0.56 

8-35 
0-53 

10.58 
0.47 

14-25 
0-53 

Grade  one                    Average  score 
Interval  three  hours    P.  E. 

4-03 
0.18 

3-17 
0.24 

3-57 

O.21 

3-37 
0.18 

3-  ii 
0.27 

It  is  at  once  apparent  that  in  a  general  way  the  results  of  the 
retention  tests  are  very  similar  to  those  of  the  immediate  test. 
Grade  one  stands  by  itself  again  for  reasons  that  have  been  men- 
tioned. Table  XXVII  shows  the  results  of  Grades  four,  six,  and 
eight  combined. 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN  MEMORIZING 
TABLE  XXVI 

Showing  the  data  of  Table  XX  V  on  a  relative  basis 


47 


Method 

i 

2 

3 

4 

s 

Grade  eight          Relative  score 
P.  E. 

47-65 
2.85 

85.20 
5-30 

92-73 

3-87 

119.14 

4-55 

155.46 

5.98 

Grade  six              Relative  score 
P.  E. 

47-37 
4.07 

64.49 

4.88 

89.76 
6-51 

H3-95 

7-42 

184.60 
10.76 

Grade  four           Relative  score 
P.  E. 

41.01 
4-44 

69.21 
6-55 

98.12 

6.  20 

124.32 

5-49 

167.45 

6.  20 

Grade  one             Relative  score 
P.  E. 

116.81 
5.22 

91.88 
6.96 

103.48 
6.09 

97.68 

5-22 

90.14 

7.83 

TABLE  XXVII 


Method 

i 

2 

3 

4 

S 

Relative  score  —  average  for  Grades 

four,  six,  and  eight 

45-34 

72.96 

93.53 

119.13 

169.17 

P.  E. 

1.19 

3-32 

1-34 

1.92 

4-47 

Table   XXVIII    following   shows    the   differences   between    the 
various  methods  computed  from  Table  XXVII. 


TABLE  XXVIII 

Showing  the  differences  between  the  various  methods  with  P.  E.'s  of  the  differences 


Differences  of  methods 

Differences  of  methods 

Differences  of  methods 

2—i  =27.62=*=  P.  E.  3.51 
3—  i  =48.19=1=  P.  E.  1.78 
4—  i  =74-79  ±  P.  E.  2.25 
5—  i  =80.75  =  P.  £.4.58 

3  —  2  =20.57  =  P.  E.  3.60 
4—  2  =46.17  =  P.  £.3.87 
5—  2  =96.21=  P.  £.5.56 

4—  3  =25.60  =  P.  E.  2.34 
5—  3  =  75.64  =fc  P.  E.  4.62 
5  —  4  =  50-04  =*=  P.  E.  4.84 

The  steps  from  Method  One  to  Method  Five  are  all  large  and 
reliable.  Nearly  four  times  as  much  is  recalled  when  the  learning 
was  predominantly  recitation  (Method  Five)  as  when  it  was  entirely 
reading  (Method  One).  As  the  amount  of  recitation  increases  the 
amount  recalled  becomes  greater.  This  increase  in  the  amount 
recalled  is  fairly  uniform  with  the  exception  of  the  comparatively 


48 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


great  difference  between  Methods  Four  and  Five.  An  explanation 
for  this  was  suggested  earlier. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  in  the  immediate  tests  no  differences  were 
found  between  the  performances  of  the  grades  (except  Grade  one) 
so  far  as  the  effects  of  the  different  methods  of  learning  were  con- 
cerned. In  the  recall  tests,  there  seems  to  be  a  slight  difference 
between  Grades  eight  and  five  with  respect  to  the  superiority  of 
Method  Five  over  Method  One.  From  Table  XXVI  the  differences 
between  Methods  Five  and  One  have  been  computed  with  results  as 
follows : 

Differences  for  grade  eight  is  107.81  =*=  P.  E.  5.83 
Differences  for  grade  six  is  137.23  =±=  P.  E.  11.70 
Differences  for  grade  five  is  126.44  *  P-  E.  7.61 

The  superiority,  in  this  respect,  of  Grade  five  over  Grade  eight  is 
18.63  Per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  9.53.  The  P.  E.  of  the  average  of  Grade  six 
is  so  large  as  to  make  comparisons  with  that  grade  meaning- 
less. Although  Grades  eight  and  five  do  differ  by  twice  the 
P.  E.,  the  exception  in  the  case  of  Grade  six  and  the  possibility 


TABLE  XXIX 

Showing  the  score  obtained  in  the  retention  tests  for  sense  material 


Method 

i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Grade  eight                    Relative  score 
Interval  four  hours       P.  E. 

9-59 
0-37 

I  I.  6O 

0.50 

15   29 
0.46 

15-77 

0-54 

I5.5I 
0.47 

14-53 
0-59 

Grade  six                        Relative  score 
Interval  three  hours     P.  E. 

8.13 
0-43 

8.61 
0.40 

12.36 
0.6O 

13-43 
0.60 

12.99 
O.62 

H.I3 

0-57 

Grade  five                      Relative  score 
Interval  three  hours     P.  E. 

7.17 
0.27 

8.20 

0.29 

10.51 

0-39 

12.28 
0.44 

10.79 
0.36 

II  .62 
0-39 

Grade  four                     Relative  score 
Interval  four  hours       P.  E. 

7.66 
0.49 

9.14 
0.44 

9.67 
0.47 

11.23 
0.61 

10.36 
0.47 

9.90 
0.47 

Grade  three                   Relative  score 
Interval  three  hours     P.  E. 

4-75 
0.36 

5.83 
0-39 

8.16 
0.41 

9.40 
0-43 

8.89 
0.44 

8.70 
0-34 

of  a  more  general  unreliability  of  the  data  (see  p.  46)  for  fine 
distinctions,  casts  doubt  upon  this  apparent  difference  between 
grades. 

In  general,  then,  the  results  for  the  retention  of  nonsense  syllables 
are  similar  to  those  found  in  immediate  tests,  with  the  important 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


49 


difference  that  the  superiority  of  the  methods  involving  recitation 
is  much  greater. 

RESULTS   AS   REGARDS   RETENTION   OF   SENSE   MATERIAL 

Tests  for  retention  of  the  sense  material  were  given  from  three 
to  four  hours  after  the  learning  tests,  the  time  always  being  the 
same  for  each  class.  The  names  of  the  individuals  whose  biogra- 
phies had  been  studied  were  written  on  the  board  and  the  pupils 
were  asked  to  write  all  they  could  remember  about  each  person. 
Ample  time  was  given. 

TABLE  XXX 

Showing  the  data  of  Table  XXIX  on  a  relative  basis 


Method 

i 

2 

3 

4 

s 

6 

Grade  eight    Relative  score 
P.  E. 

79-58 
3-06 

96.26 
4.14 

126.88 

3-81 

130.87 

4-47 

128.71 
3-89 

120.58 
4.89 

Grade  six        Relative  score 
P.  E. 

74-31 
3  93 

78.70 
3-65 

112.97 

5-48 

122.76 

5.48 

ii8.73 
5-66 

101.73 

5  20 

Grade  five      Relative  score 
P.  E. 

71.06 
2.71 

81.26 
2.90 

I04.I6 
3-89 

121.70 
4.42 

106.93 
3-6o 

115.16 

39° 

Grade  four     Relative  score 
P.  E. 

79.29 
5-04 

94.61 

4-53 

IOO.IO 

4.84 

116.25 
6.28 

107.24 

4-84 

102.48 
4.84 

Grade  three    Relative  score 
P.  E. 

62.33 
4-7i 

76.50 
5-io 

107.08 
5-37 

123-35 
5-63 

116.66 
5-76 

114.17 
4-45 

Table  XXIX  shows  the  results  for  the  various  grades  in  the  form 
of  averages  with  P.  E.'s  computed  as  before.  Table  XXX  gives  the 
same  data  on  a  relative  basis.  Figure  3  gives  the  data  of  Tables 
XXX  and  XXXI  in  graphic  form. 


TABLE  XXXI 

Showing  the  average  of  the  results  for  all  grades 


Method 

i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Average 
P.  E. 

73-31 
i-93 

85-44 
2-45 

110.23 

2.83 

122.98 

1-43 

H5-65 
2.46 

110.82 
2.27 

Table  XXXII  following  shows  the  differences  between  the  vari- 
ous methods  with  the  P.  E.  of  the  differences,  computed  from  the 
data  of  Table  XXXI. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 
TABLE  XXXII 

Showing  the  differences  between  the  various  methods 
with  the  P.  E.  of  the  differences 


Methods 

Methods 

Methods 

2  —  i  =  12.13=1=  P.  E.  3.12 
3—  1=36.92=?.  E.  3.42 
4  —  i  =49.67=1=  P.  E.  2.40 
5—  i  =42.34=*=  P.  £.3.12 
6  —  i  =37.1  1  =P.  E.  2.98 

3—  2  =24.79  ±  P.  £.3.74 
4—  2  =37.54  =  P.  E.  2.83 
5  —  2  =30.21  =P.  E.  3.46 
6—  2=24.38  =  ?.  £.3.34 

4—3=       12.75  =  P.  £.3.16 

5—3=       5-42  =*=  P.  E.3.74 
6—3=       0.59  =  P.  £.3.63 
5—4=   -7-33*  P.  E.2.84 
6—4  =  —  12.16  =*=  P.  E.  2.68 
6—5=   -4.83  =  P.  £.3.34 

From  these  tables  it  is  clear  that  the  general  results  for  retention 
are  very  similar  to  those  obtained  in  the  immediate  test.  Method 
Four  is  the  best,  while  Method  One  is  the  poorest.  In  the  immediate 
test  (see  Table  XXIV)  Method  Four  showed  a  superiority  over 
Method  One  of  26.64  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  2.5  while  in  the  retention 
test  (see  Table  XXXII)  the  difference  is  49.67  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E. 
2.4  or  nearly  twice  as  great.  The  earlier  finding  that  Methods  Five 
and  Six  are  somewhat  inferior  to  Method  Four  is  borne  out  by  the 
similar  result  in  the  retention  test.  On  the  whole  the  results  of  the 
immediate  and  the  delayed  tests  are  similar  except  that  the  differ- 
ences between  methods  are  more  pronounced  in  the  retention  tests. 
In  the  immediate  test  Method  Four  was  superior  to  Method  One  by 
26.64  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  2.5;  while  in  the  retention  test  the  super- 
iority is  49.67  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  2.4. 

Differences  Among  Grades 

When  the  differences  between  grades  are  considered,  the  corre- 
spondence of  the  results  for  immediate  and  delayed  memory  is  not 
so  close.  The  finding  in  the  immediate  tests,  that  the  difference 
between  the  best  method  and  the  poorest  method  was  much 
greater  for  the  lower  grades,  is  not  borne  out  by  the  results  for 
retention. 

The  average  superiority  of  Method  Four  over  Method  One 

For  grade  eight  =  51.29  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  5.38 
For  grade  six  =  48.45  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  6.70 
For  grade  five  =  50.64  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  5.19 
For  grade  four  =  36.96  per  cent.  =  P.  E.  8.06 
For  grade  three  =  61.02  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  7.28 

The  magnitude  of  these  differences  shows  no  correspondence  to 
order  of  grades. 


Method       i 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

FIGURE  3 

Based  on  the  data  of  Tables  XXX  and  XXXI 
2345 


52  RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

Another  difference  between  grades  previously  found,  namely, 
that  the  methods  introducing  recitation  very  early  worked  a  hard- 
ship upon  the  lower  grades  but  not  on  the  upper  ones,  is  not  shown 
by  the  results  for  retention. 

The  superiority  of  Method  Four  over  Method  Six,  for  example,  is 

For  grade  eight  =  10.29  per  cent.  ±  P.  E.  6.63 
For  grade  six  =  11.03  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  7.55 
For  grade  five  =  6.54  per  cent.  ±  P.  E.  5.83 
For  grade  four  =  13.77  per  cent.  =±=  P.  E.  7.93 
For  grade  three  =  9.18  per  cent.  =±=  P.  E.  7.14 

The  differences  between  grades  in  this  respect  are  nil.  In  fact,  all 
of  the  differences  between  the  two  methods  are  so  small  in  compar- 
ison with  the  P.  E.  as  to  be  of  very  doubtful  significance. 

A  third  difference  found  on  the  immediate  tests — that  for  the 
upper  grades  a  method  involving  sixty  per  cent,  reading  (Method 
Three)  was  quite  as  good  as  any  other,  while  for  the  lower  grades 
this  method  was  distinctly  inferior  to  the  methods  giving  more  time 
to  recitation — is  quite  clearly  indicated  in  the  findings  for 
retention. 

The  superiority  of  Method  Four  over  Method  Three 

For  grade  eight  =  3.99  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  5.83 
For  grade  six  =  9.79  per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  7.74 
For  grade  five  =  17.54  Per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  5.83 
For  grade  four  =  16.15  Per  cent.  =±=  P.  E.  7.93 
For  grade  three  =  16.27  per  cent.  ="=  P.  E.  7.68 

For  Grades  six  and  eight,  Method  Four  shows  no  real  superiority 
over  Three,  but  in  the  case  of  Grades  five,  four,  three  real  differences 
appear. 

Summary  of  Results  for  Retention  of  Sense  Material 

In  general,  the  results  are  similar  to  those  found  for  immediate 
tests,  the  differences  between  the  best  and  poorest  methods  being 
somewhat  greater.  The  superiority  of  Method  Four  over  Method 
One  in  the  immediate  test  was  26.64  Per  cent.  =*=  P.  E.  2.5  as 
compared  to  49.67  per  cent.  =±=  P.  E.  2.4,  or  very  nearly  twice 
as  great. 

In  some  respects,  the  findings  for  the  retention  tests  have  not 
borne  out  the  earlier  results  concerning  differences  between  the 
various  classes.  But,  as  was  explained  before,  certain  possible 
sources  of  error  in  the  data  from  the  retention  tests  render  these 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  53 

results  of  doubtful  value  for  fine  comparisons.  The  findings  in  the 
immediate  tests  are  probably  better  indications  of  real  distinctions 
between  grades. 

RESULTS    FROM    EXPERIMENTS   UPON   ADULTS 
WITH    NONSENSE   MATERIAL 

In  addition  to  the  experiments  carried  out  with  children  as 
subjects,  tests  were  made  upon  adult  students,  using  materials  and 
methods  similar  in  most  respects  to  those  previously  described. 
The  purpose  of  this  extension  of  the  work  was  threefold :  first,  to 
furnish  a  basis  of  comparison  of  the  present  results  with  those  of 
earlier  investigations ;  second,  to  permit  a  comparison  of  the  work 
of  children  with  adults  in  similar  tests;  and  third,  to  obtain  more 
detailed  information  concerning  the  nature  of  the  particular  func- 
tions employed  in  the  two  methods  of  learning. 

The  subjects  for  the  tests  to  be  described  were  for  the  most  part 
graduate  students,  members  of  classes  in  experimental  psychology. 
The  materials  used  were  qualitatively  the  same  as  those  employed 
with  the  children. 

Fifteen  such  students  of  psychology  at  Columbia  were  given,  on 
three  different  days,  ten-minute  tests  with  series  of  twenty  nonsense 
syllables.  Each  day  one  of  the  three  different  methods  of  study  was 
used;  first,  10'  reading;  second,  5'  L  +  5'  R;  third,  2'  L  +  8'  R. 

The  group  was  divided  into  three  squads,  and  practice  effects, 
individual  differences  and  differences  in  tests  were  neutralized  in 
the  total  by  employing  a  method  in  all  essentials  the  same  as  that 
described  on  p.  26  ff.  The  records  of  the  individual  students,  however, 
are  fairly  reliable  as  such  for  the  reason  that  all  of  these  subjects 
had  just  completed  a  series  of  experiments  on  the  learning  process 
and  memory  extending  over  three  months.  Each  had  learned 
during  this  time  several  hundred  nonsense  syllables  as  well  as  much 
other  material  and  were  thus  fairly  highly  practised  subjects. 
Detailed  introspective  accounts  of  the  factors  involved  in  the 
several  methods  of  learning  were  requested.  These  will  be  consid- 
ered later.  Each  person  acted  as  subject  for  his  or  her  regular 
laboratory  partner,  who  kept  the  time,  and  nbted  the  number  of 
repetitions  made.  Later  the  two  reversed  positions,  the  former 
experimenter  now  acting  as  subject.  Each  used  a  different  series 
of  syllables,  and  six  different  texts  were  used  altogether. 

The  data  were  scored  by  giving  a  grade  for  each  correct  letter 
when  there  were  two  or  more  correct,  and  an  additional  credit  when 
the  syllable  was  in  correct  position.  The  highest  possible  score  for 
the  twenty  syllables  would  thus  be  eighty.7 

7  See  Lyon,  D,  O.,  'The  Relation  of  Quickness  of  Learning  to  Retentiveness',  Archives  of 
Psychology,  1916,  No.  24,  p.  27. 


54 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


Table  XXXIII  shows  the  records  of  the  various  individuals  with 
the  average,  the  A.  D.'s,  for  the  number  of  repetitions  and  the 
P.  E.'s  for  the  obtained  average.  The  P.  E.'s  were  computed  by 

a  dis. 

the  formula  P.  E.  =  .6745 — 

Vn 

The  differences  between  the  methods  as  shown  by  the  average 
results  are  large  and  reliable,  the  P.  E.'s  being  small.  In  general 
Method  Three  results  in  more  than  twice  as  much  material  learned 


TABLE  XXXIII 

Showing  the  scores  obtained  by  adults  in  learning  nonsense 
syllables.     Highest  possible  score  eighty 


Subject 

Method 

i.   Lio' 

Method  2.    Ls' 

Rs' 

Methods-    L2' 

R8' 

Repeti- 
tions 

Score 

Repetitions 
L               R 

Score 

Repetitions 
L                R 

Score 

Day 

one 

Day  two 

Day  three 

Hm. 

62 

22 

26 

21 

60 

6 

25 

78 

Dn. 

54 

32 

22 

18 

49 

5 

21 

80 

Bm. 

23 

16 

13 

ii 

58 

5 

10 

74 

Bs. 

22 

32 

15 

10 

60 

4 

9 

80 

Tr. 

50 

23 

24 

23 

38 

6 

15 

68 

Day  two 

Day  three 

Day  one 

Py. 

55 

7 

20 

6 

19 

6 

9 

47 

Gl. 

68 

9 

17 

5 

40 

7 

13 

49 

Bn. 

26 

38 

23 

H 

52 

*  7 

16 

78 

Jy. 

26 

28 

9 

7 

32 

6 

H 

42 

Hr. 

38 

36 

12 

10 

56 

5 

16 

50 

Day  three 

Day  one 

Day  two 

Mk. 

37 

24 

18 

14 

48 

6 

16 

60 

Sn. 

50 

29 

24 

20 

58 

9 

29 

74 

At. 

36 

56 

10 

8 

56 

4 

18 

63 

Ly. 

23 

12 

25 

15 

43 

6 

II 

62 

Wp. 

29 

23 

10 

14 

30 

4 

15 

50 

Average 

40 

25-8 

18 

13 

46.6 

5 

•7        16 

63-7 

A.D.I4 

P.E.I.2 

A.D.5 

.2  A.D.5.I 

P.E.i.4 

A.D. 

i.o  A.D.  4.0 

P.E.i.4 

as  Method  One,  Method  Two  stands  slightly  above  the  average  for 
the  other  two.  Minor  differences  among  individuals  will  be  appa- 
rent on  observation,  but  it  will  be  noticed  that  in  but  one  case  is 
Method  Three  inferior  to  Method  Two  and  in  no  case  is  Method  Two 
inferior  to  Method  One,  although  in  one  case  Method  Two  is  equal 
to  and  in  two  other  cases  very  slightly  superior  to  Method  One.  The 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  55 

superiority  of  Method  Three  over  the  others,  is  somewhat  greater 
than  the  data  show  in  two  cases.  Subject  Bs.  had  completely 
learned  the  series  in  8'  42"  under  Method  Three  and  Subject  Dn. 
had  completed  the  learning  some  time  (exact  amount  not  known) 
before  the  end  of  the  ten-minute  period. 

Great  individual  differences  appear  with  regard  to  the  number 
of  repetitions  made  during  the  ten-minute  study  period.  The 
average  number  of  repetitions  when  the  learning  was  entirely  by- 
means  of  reading  was  forty,  with  a  mean  variation  of  fourteen. 
The  extreme  rates  were  those  of  Subject  Bs.  with  twenty- two 
repetitions  and  Gl.  with  sixty-eight,  or  three  times  as  many  as  Bs. 
Method  Two  showrs  similar  individual  differences  in  the  learning  by 
reciting  as  well  as  by  reading.  The  average  number  of  repetitions 
for  five-minute  reading  being  eighteen  with  a  M.  V.  of  5.2  and  for 
five-minute  recitations  the  average  number  is  thirteen  with  a  M.  V. 
of  5.06.  The  average  figures  also  show  that  the  rates  of  repetition 
were  less  for  learning  by  reciting  than  for  learning  by  reading, 
although  as  far  as  this  test  is  concerned,  the  difference  may  be 
taken  to  mean  merely  that  the  repetitions  in  the  last  half  of  a 
period  of  learning  are  longer  than  those  of  the  first  half.  That  the 
former  interpretation  is  more  likely  to  be  the  correct  one  is  indicated 
by  the  fact  that  the  sum  of  the  repetitions  for  the  all  reading  test 
(Method  One)  is  greater  than  for  the  half  reading,  half  recitation 
test  (Method  Two),  i.  e.,  forty  as  compared  to  thirty-one.  This 
greater  speed  of  repetitions  in  the  reading  portion  of  Method  Two 
is  shown  by  fourteen  of  the  fifteen  individuals.  Method  Three 
shows  the  same  situation,  the  total  number  of  repetitions  here 
being  twenty-two,  with  rather  wide  differences  among  individuals. 

More  Intensive  Work  with  Nonsense  Syllables 

Somewhat  more  extensive  work  was  done  with  two  graduate 
students,  more  skilled  in  introspective  observation.  Each  of  these 
subjects  was  given  several  preliminary  tests  to  insure  an  acquain- 
tance with  the  procedure  and  to  eliminate  practice  effects  to  some 
extent,  before  the  main  experiment  was  begun.  Series  of  twenty 
nonsense  syllables  were  studied  for  eight  minutes  according  to  six 
different  methods.  Three  tests  were  made  by  each  method,  and  in 
each  case  the  number  and  duration  of  the  repetition  were  noted  by 
the  writer  who  kept  the  time  with  a  stop  watch.  But  one  test  was 
made  on  a  single  day.  A  recall  test  was  made  after  approximately 
six  hours  for  Subject  5  and  after  twenty-four  hours  for  Subject  T. 
The  following  table  gives  the  results  in  detail.8  The  data  were 

8  The  durations  of  the  repetitions  are  not  presented  here,  but  will  be  mentioned  in  a  later 
section. 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


scored  in  the  manner  described  on  p.  53,  eighty  being  the  highest 
score  possible.  The  'natural  method'  gave  the  subject  liberty  to 
study  in  any  way  he  might  choose. 

The  results  for  Subjects  5  and  T  are  very  much  the  same  as  the 
average  results  just  found  for  the  larger  group.  The  differences 
between  Methods  Four  and  Five  for  both  subjects  are  too  small  to 

TABLE  XXXIV 

Showing  the  average  results  for  three  trials  of  each  subject 


Method  One 

Method  Two 

Method  Three 

8'L 

6'L  2'R 

4'L  4'R 

Combinations 

Repeti- 

Repetitions 

Repetitions 

tions 

Score 

Score 

Score 

L 

L 

R 

L 

R 

Subject  S,  Average 

17 

24 

8 

2-3 

34 

6 

4-3 

48 

Subject  T,  Average 

32 

16 

9 

3-0 

27 

13 

10.  0 

34 

Subject  S,  recall  after 

six  hours.    Average 

7-6 

10.3 

17.6 

Subject  T,  recall  after 

twenty-four   hours. 

Average 

8.6 

II-  3 

13-3 

Method  Four 

Method  Five 

Method  Six 

2'L  6'R 

I'L  y'R 

Natural  Method 

Combinations 

Repetitions 

Repetitions 

Repetitions 

Score 

Score 

Score 

L 

R 

L 

R 

L 

R 

Subject  S,  Average 

3-5 

5-6 

49 

2 

8 

52 

2.6 

9 

51 

Subject  T,  Average 

4.0 

18.0 

49 

3 

22 

51 

3-0 

20 

50 

Subject  S,  recall  after 

six  hours.    Average 

27-3 

26.3 

29.0 

Subject  T,  recall  after 

twenty-four   hours. 

Average 

22.6 

24.0 

21.3 

be  of  significance  and  the  'natural  method'  produces  results  that 
are  quite  as  good  as  any  other.  This  means  that  trained  subjects 
are  capable  of  discovering  and  employing  the  best  methods  of 
attack.  Subject  5  began  to  attempt  to  recite  in  the  'natural 
method'  after  two,  four,  and  two  repetitions  respectively  or  at 
about  the  same  stage  at  which  recitation  was  begun  in  Methods 
Four  or  Five.  The  case  is  similar  for  Subject  T.  Subject  S  in  Methods 
Four,  Five,  or  Six  learned  about  twice  as  much  as  in  Method  One, 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  57 

while  Subject  T  learned  about  three  times  as  much.  The  recall 
tests  after  six  or  twenty-four  hours  bear  out  the  findings  for  the 
learning  test,  being  somewhat  more  emphatic.  For  Subject  S  under 
the  optimum  methods  shows  an  amount  recalled  three  times  as 
great  as  under  Method  One  while  for  Subject  T  the  ratio  is  nearly 
four  to  one. 

The  speed  of  repetitions  varies  considerably  for  the  two  sub- 
jects and  for  the  same  subject  at  different  times,  but  in  nearly 
all  cases  reading  seems  to  be  done  at  a  higher  speed  than  recita- 
tion, although  as  will  be  found  later  the  duration  of  repetitions 
during  reading  are  very  uniform  while  those  during  recitation  are 
very  irregular. 

In  addition  to  the  data  here  presented,  a  few  additional  experi- 
ments, somewhat  more  specialized  in  nature,  were  performed  and 
are  presented  in  a  later  section  (pp.  71  and  72),  in  which  four- 
teen adult  subjects  participated  in  two  five-minute  periods  of 
studying  sixteen  nonsense  syllables,  according  to  two  methods: 
first,  in  which  only  reading  was  permitted ;  and  second,  in  which 
recitation  was  permitted  from  the  first.  The  average  results  show 
a  score  16.4  for  the  reading  method  and  32.85  for  the  recitation 
method,  or  exactly  twice  as  much.  A  similar  test  (p.  81)  with  eleven 
subjects  gave  similar  results,  5.54  syllables  being  correctly  recalled 
in  the  reading  test  as  compared  to  11.4  in  the  recitation  test. 

Summary  of  Results  for  Adults  with  Nonsense  Syllables 

1.  Several  different  experiments  upon  adult  students  in  learning 
nonsense  syllables  produce  results  similar  to  those  found  for  children. 
The  advantage  of  methods  affording  an  optimum  amount  of  recita- 
tion over  the  reading  methods  is  very  great,   the  two  methods 
showing  in  general  a  ratio  of  about  two  to  one. 

2.  Although  considerable  individual  differences  were  found,  no 
subject  was  discovered  who  did  not  obtain  better  results  with 
recitation  than  without  it.     . 

3.  Great  individual  differences  were  found  in  the  rate  at  which 
the  series  were  read  or  recited,  but  in  general  the  durations  of 
recitations  are  longer  than  the  durations  of  readings. 

4.  The  advantage  of  the  methods  combining  recitation  with 
reading  in  the  learning  period  is  more  pronounced  in  delayed  than 
in  immediate  recall. 

EXPERIMENTS   UPON  ADULTS   WITH   SENSE   MATERIAL 

Non-connected  Sense  Material 

Two  graduate  students,  5  and  T,  acted  as  subjects  for  a  few  tests, 
in  studying  for  eight-minute  periods  series  of  thirty  words  of  four 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


letters  each,  according  to  several  different  methods.  Two  prelim- 
inary trials  were  given  in  each  case  before  the  actual  series  were 
started.  Two  series  of  tests  were  given,  the  order  of  methods  being 
reversed  in  the  second  series.  No  word  was  repeated  in  the  series 
of  lists  used.  The  data  were  scored  by  giving  a  credit  of  two  for  a 
correct  word  and  an  additional  credit  if  it  were  in  the  correct  posi- 
tion. Thus  the  highest  possible  score  would  be  ninety.  Table 
XXXV  gives  the  results : 

TABLE  XXXV 


Combina- 
tions 

Method  one 
8'L 

Method  two 
4'L  4'R 

Method  three 
2'L  6'R 

Method  four 
Natural  method 

Repeti- 
tions 

Score 

Repetitions 

Score 

Repetitions 

Score 

Repetitions 

Score 

L 

L           R 

L           R 

L 

R 

Subject  S 


First 

series 

12 

30 

7 

4 

49 

3 

10 

53 

3 

II 

51 

Second 

series 

15 

35 

6 

6 

58 

2-5 

ii 

60 

2 

II 

54 

Average 

13-5 

32.5 

6-5 

5 

53-5 

2-7 

10.5 

56.5 

2-5 

II 

52.5 

Subject  T 


First 

series 

H 

27 

8 

7 

39 

3 

H 

45 

3 

13 

50 

Second 

series 

16 

34 

9 

7 

42 

3 

13 

47 

3 

15 

47 

Average 

15 

30-5 

8-5 

7 

40-5 

3 

13-5 

46 

3 

H 

48.5 

Subject  S.     Recall  after  six  hours 


First 

series 
Second 

15 

30 

20 

series 

12 

17 

30 

Average 

13-5 

23-5 

30 

20 

Subject  T.     Recall  after  six  hours 


First 

series 

12 

25 

Second 

series 

H 

29 

30 

Average 

13 

27 

30 

RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


59 


While  this  experiment  is  far  from  being  extensive  enough  to  be 
decisive,  it  is  suggestive.  The  subjects  were  well  habituated  to  this 
kind  of  learning,  having  previously  learned  nearly  thirty  series  of 
nonsense  syllables.  Both  agree  in  showing  that  lists  of  words  can 
be  more  readily  learned  by  a  method  which  permits  recitation,  but 
the  difference  between  the  methods  is  not  so  pronounced  as  was 
found  with  nonsense  syllables.  For  Subject  5,  in  learning  nonsense 
syllables,  Method  Four  was  related  to  Method  One  as  two  to  one; 
for  Subject  T  the  ratio  was  nearly  three  to  one;  while  for  lists  of 
meaningful  words  the  ratios  of  the  corresponding  methods  are  for 
Subject  5  about  one  and  seven-tenths  to  one,  for  Subject  T  one  and 
five- tenths  to  one.  The  retention  tests  for  series  of  words  show  a 
similar  ratio,  although  the  data  are  too  few  for  reliable  results. 

Experiments  with  Connected  Sense  Material 

Subject  T  endeavored  in  six  different  tests  of  ten  minutes  each 
to  learn  twenty-line  stanzas  of  poetry  from  Goldsmith's  'Deserted 
Village',  according  to  three  different  methods.  Recall  of  the 
material  was  attempted  after  six  hours.  The  results  show  the 
number  of  words  learned  or  remembered. 


TABLE  XXXVI 


Combinations 

Method  One 
10'  L 

Method  Three 
S'L  s'R 

Method  Four 

Repeti- 
tions 

Score 

Repetitions 

Score 

Repetitions 

Score 

L 

L 

R 

L 

R 

First  series 
Second  series 

II 
12-5 

78 
86 

6 

5 

4 

5 

93 
1  06 

3 
3 

7 
8 

84 
108 

Average 

82 

•A  

99-5 

96 

Recall  after  six  hours 


First  series 

44 

66 

Second  series 

53 

58 

58 

Average 

49-5 

62 

58 

The  advantage  of  the  methods  including  recitation  over  the 
reading  method  is  apparent  although  not  very  large  in  both  the 
immediate  and  the  delayed  memory  test.  The  method  employing 
fifty  per  cent,  reading  and  fifty  per  cent,  recitation  seems  to  be 
quite  as  good  as  the  method  permitting  seventy-five  per  cent, 
recitation.  The  results,  of  course,  are  too  few  to  be  more  than 


6o 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


suggestive,  although  they  do  seem  to  be  quite  in  harmony  with  the 
findings  for  children. 

The  biographical  sense  material  used  with  the  school-children 
(see  p.  26)  was  studied  by  fifteen  graduate  students  under  three 
different  methods,  as  shown  in  Table  XXXVII.  The  fifteen  sub- 


TABLE  XXXVII 

Showing  the  number  of  details  or  facts  recalled 


Combinations 

Method  One 

Method  Two 

Method  Three 

8'L 

4'L  4'R 

2'L  6'R 

Subjects 

Day  one 

Day  two 

Day  three 

Bm 

41 

48 

52 

Ws 

14 

28 

32 

Ky 

36 

39 

45 

Tr 

9 

20 

22 

Sn 

13 

18 

19 

Day  two 

Day  three 

Day  one 

At 

39 

47 

49 

Rs 

40 

47 

39 

Gl 

10 

20 

19 

Py 

8 

22 

20 

Sa 

8 

18 

21 

Day  three 

Day  one 

Day  two 

Mn 

H 

21 

26 

Ce 

23 

27 

3i 

An 

18 

24 

27 

Sn 

19 

18 

21 

Ms 

18 

30 

26 

Average 

20.  6 

28.4 

29.9 

P.  E. 

2.1 

i-9 

1-9 

jects  were  divided  into  three  groups,  ea*ch  employing  a  different 
method  on  the  different  days.  Other  details  were  the  same  as 
those  described  on  page  53. 

The  average  results  for  Methods  Two  and  Three  are  distinctly 
superior  to  those  for  Method  One,  and  this  is  true  practically  without 
exception  for  all  of  the  individual  cases.  The  difference,  in  the 
average  results,  between  Methods  Two  and  Three  is  small  and  being 
no  larger  than  the  P.  E.  is  unreliable.  The  general  result  of  this 
test  upon  adults  is  the  same  as  that  obtained  from  the  older  children 
with  the  same  sort  of  material.  The  value  of  recitation  as  compared 
to  reading  is  not  so  great  as  it  is  when  nonsense  material  is  used, 
and  no  particular  advantage  is  obtained  by  introducing  the  recita- 
tion very  early  in  the  learning. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  6 1 

GENERAL    SUMMARY 

Nonsense  Material 

1.  In  general,  recitation,  after  a  few  initial  readings,  is  of  much 
more  value  in  learning  than  more  reading. 

a.  Under  the  conditions  of  the  present  experiment  a  method 
devoting  the  first  twenty  per  cent,  of  the  time  to  reading  followed 
by  eighty  per  cent,  recitation  will  result  in  learning  for  immediate 
reproduction  twice  as  much  material  as  will  a  method  of  reading 
only. 

b.  As  measured  by  recall  three  to  four  hours  later,  the  difference 
between  the  two  methods  is  about  twice  as  great;   four  times  as 
much  being  recalled  under  the  recitation  method  as  under  the 
reading  method. 

2.  After  a  certain  amount  of  initial  reading  (one  minute  and 
forty-eight  seconds  or  twenty  per  cent,  of  the  total  time  in  this 
experiment)    the   more   quickly   the   recitation   is   introduced   the 
better  the  results  as  measured  by  either  immediate  or  delayed 
recall. 

3.  No  conspicuous  differences  appear  between  the  results  for 
adult  subjects  and  children  or  between  the  various  grades  with  the 
exception  that  the  findings  for  the  first  grade  differ  from  all  others. 

Sense  Material 

1 .  In  general  the  best  results  are  obtained  from  a  method  devot- 
ing about  forty  per  cent,  of  the  time  to  reading  followed  by  an 
equal  amount  of  recitation. 

2.  In  general,  the  optimum  combination  of  reading  and  recita- 
tion produces  in  immediate  tests  results  superior  by  about  twenty- 
seven  per  cent,  to  those  obtained  from  reading  only. 

a.  The  difference  shown  by  recall  three  or  four  hours  later  is 
nearly  twice  as  great  as  that  shown  in  the  immediate  test. 

3.  In  most  respects  the  results  for  adults  and  for  the  various 
grades  are  very  similar. 

4.  In  certain  respects  differences  between  the  grades  were  found 
on  the  basis  of  the  results  of  immediate  tests. 

a.  The  advantage  of  the  best  methods  over  the  poorest  is 
much  greater  in  the  lower  grades  than  in  the  upper,  e.  g.,  the 
average  advantage  for  grades  three  and  four  of  the  best  method 
over  the  poorest  is  35.99  per  cent,  as  compared  to  1 8  per  cent., 
the  average  for  Grades  six  and  eight. 


62  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

b.  Introducing  recitation  very  early  in  the  study  period  has  a 
disadvantageous  effect  upon  the  learning  of  the  lower  grades,  but 
has  little  or  no  ill  effect  upon  the  work  of  the  upper  grades. 

c.  The  upper  grades,  in  comparison  with  the  lower,  learn  more 
effectively  under  the  methods  involving  a  relatively  large  amount 
of  reading. 

5.  With  the  exception  of  (c)  above,  none  of  the  differences 
between  grades  were  evident  in  the  results  of  the  retention  tests. 

a.  This  was  believed  to  be  due,  in  the  main,  to  unavoidable 
errors  which  crept  into  the  retention  tests  (see  p.  46). 

Results  from  Tests  on  Adults 

1.  The  advantage  of  recitations  over  reading  is  greater  the  more 
senseless  and  unconnected  the  material. 

a.  Advantage  is  greatest  for  nonsense  syllables,  less  great 
for  lists  of  words,  and  still  less  great  for  connected  prose  or 
poetry. 

2.  Great  individual  differences  appear  in  the  tempo  of  studying 
by  reading  or  recitation,  some  individuals  completing,  a  perusal  on 
the  average  in  one-third  of  the  time  taken  by  others. 

3.  As  a  rule,  the  tempo  is  considerably  quicker  in  reading  than 
in  recitation,  for  most  individuals. 

4.  Usually,  a  given  individual  during  a  single  sitting,  reads  and 
rereads  at  a  very  uniform  speed,  while  the  rates  for  consecutive 
recitations  are  very  variable. 

COMPARISON   WITH    RESULTS    OF    OTHER    INVESTIGATIONS 

The  general  findings  in  the  present  experiment  upon  children  as 
well  as  upon  adults  are  in  harmony  with  the  results  of  most  of  the 
earlier  investigations,  which  were  presented  in  Chapter  II.  It  will 
be  necessary  here  to  recall  but  briefly  the  conclusions  obtained  in 
some  of  the  more  important  of  the  earlier  works. 

Katzaroff  found,  by  combining  the  results  for  three  subjects, 
four  tests  each,  that  fifteen  readings  of  nonsense  syllables — the  test 
being  made  seventy-two  hours  later — produced  a  score  of  six  as 
compared  to  twenty  obtained  from  eight  readings  and  seven  recita- 
tions. Other  individuals  in  similar  tests,  showed  even  greater 
differences.  Witasek,  Knors,  and  Abbott  also  verified  the  greater 
effectiveness  of  recitation  in  learning  nonsense  syllables  under 
various  conditions,  although  the  quantitative  determination  of  the 
superiority  of  recitation  has  differed  considerably. 

The  work  of  Kiihn,  being  more  akin  to  the  present  experiments, 
is  of  more  value  for  comparative  purposes.  In  immediate  tests, 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  63 

the  superiority  of  recitation  over  reading  found  by  Kiihn  is  very 
similar  to  that  found  in  the  present  work,  for  each  of  the  several 
materials  used.  Kiihn's  conclusion  (p.  422),  "By  the  majority  of 
people  [adults]  recitation  is  much  better  than  readings,  and  the 
relative  advantage  is  greater,  the  more  senseless  the  material,"  is 
verified  by  the  present  results  with  children  as  well  as  adult 
subjects. 

With  regard  to  the  present  finding  that  the  superiority  of  recita- 
tion over  reading  is  greater  when  measured  by  delayed  than  by 
immediate  recall,  but  little  evidence  has  been  produced  by  the 
earlier  studies.  But  the  results  that  are  available  seem  to  be  in 
harmony  with  the  present  findings.  For  example  Kiihn  found 
(see  p.  8)  that  a  lesson,  although  learned  in  very  much  less  time 
by  means  of  recitation  than  by  reading  alone,  was  retained  much 
better  and  that  the  superiority  of  recitation  in  this  respect  became 
greater  the  longer  the  retention  test  was  delayed. 

The  matter  of  individual  differences  deserves  consideration. 
Abbott  in  experiments  upon  five  subjects  found  one  among  these 
for  whom  reading  was  a  better  method  of  learning  than  recitation 
and  Kiihn  found  the  same  in  the  case  of  three  out  of  thirteen 
subjects.  Both  investigators  found  that  such  learners  employed  a 
'purely  mechanical'  form  of  learning  or  were  of  very  strong  visual 
type — such  that  best  results  were  obtained  when  the  subject  simply 
'looks  at  a  word  and  lets  it  soak  in'.  Abbott  concludes,  "We  must 
go  back  to  the  type  of  the  individual  to  explain  the  processes  and 
relative  efficiency  in  recall."  This  matter  of  learning  types  will  be 
taken  up  in  more  detail  in  the  next  section.  For  the  present,  while 
there  is  no  intention  of  contending  that  such  extreme  types  as 
those  found  by  Abbott  and  Kiihn  do  not  exist,  the  present  work 
indicates  that  they  are  in  no  wise  numerically  so  prominent  as  their 
findings  would  suggest.  While  Kiihn  found  three  among  thirteen 
subjects,  and  Abbott  one  among  five,  in  the  present  work,  tests 
upon  fifty  or  more  adults  made  under  less  artificial  conditions  have 
not  produced  a  single  case  of  such  'mechanical'  or  'strongly 
visual'  types.  In  no  case  has  the  method  of  learning  by  reading 
given  better  results  than  a  method  in  which  recitation  was  also  a 
factor.  Unfortunately,  the  data  of  the  children  cannot  be  employed 
on  this  point  with  assurance,  for  the  reason  that  the  effects  of  a 
particular  method  in  the  case  of  any  individual  may  be  marked  by 
practice  effects,  differences  in  texts,  and  the  like.  However,  in  spite 
of  all  these  differences,  an  examination  of  the  individual  data  shows 
that  exceptions  to  the  general  rule  that  recitation  is  more  effective 
than  reading  are  very,  very  rare.  This  fact  has  a  very  important 
pedagogical  significance,  since  it  gives  assurance  that  such  appli- 


64  RECITATION  AS  A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

cations  as  follow  from  a  study  such  as  the  present  one,  may  be 
made  by  the  teacher  to  her  pupils  as  a  whole  without  working  a 
hardship  on  more  than  a  very  few  if  any  individuals. 

Further  considerations  of  interest  to  pedagogy,  such  as  the  opti- 
mum point  of  introducing  the  recitation  in  the  case  of  various 
materials,  and  the  efficacy  of  various  minor  functions  employed  in 
learning,  will  be  treated  in  more  detail  in  the  next  two  sections. 


AN   ANALYSIS   OF   READING  AND   RECITATION 
AS   FACTORS   IN   LEARNING 

The  previous  section,  from  an  objective  point  of  view,  gave  us 
certain  facts  concerning  two  very  broad  and  complex  functions, 
e.  g.,  learning  by  reading  and  learning  by  recitation.  It  was  found 
that  the  results,  measured  in  terms  of  the  amount  of  material  learned 
in  a  given  time  and  the  amount  retained  after  a  given  time,  differed 
considerably  according  to  the  proportion  of  time  allotted  to  one  or 
the  other  of  these  two  functions.  One  is  interested  to  discover,  if 
possible,  in  just  what  manner  these  two  broad  functions  differ, 
since  the  result  of  their  exercise  is  so  markedly  different.  It  is 
likely  that  the  best  method  of  discovering  these  differences  is  to 
analyse  each  of  the  complex  functions.,  as  far  as  possible,  into  their 
elements,  finding  just  what  minor  functions  are  operative  and  in 
what  manner  they  combine  to  make  up  the  gross  functions  of  learn- 
ing in  each  case.  If  such  an  analysis  can  be  successfully  accom- 
plished, the  result  should  be  a  much  better  understanding  of  the 
two  functions  as  a  whole  and  the  production  of  valuable  suggestions 
with  regard  to  the  selection  and  combination  of  constituent  func- 
tions for  the  most  economical  methods  of  study. 

But  such  a  reduction  of  the  complex  functions  into  constituent 
processes  that  shall  be  typical  is  by  no  means  an  easy  or  a  certain 
matter.  Some  of  the  elementary  functions  can  be  observed  from 
the  outside  and  can  be  verified  by  objective  tests,  but  most  of  the 
facts  can  be  observed  only  by  the  learner  and  we  are  forced  to 
limit  ourselves  to  his  reports  upon  them.  Indeed,  most  of  our 
analysis  is  of  the  introspective,  or  more  accurately  retrospective 
sort,  subject  to  the  limitations  of  this  form  of  evidence. 

In  the  present  work  an  effort  has  been  made  to  get  reports  as  full 
as  possible,  and  as  free  from  suggestion  as  possible,  from  subjects 
believed  to  be  reliable  and  capable.  About  forty  subjects  in  all 
were  used,  and  they  were  subjects  whose  experience  seems  to  have 
fitted  them  for  the  retrospective  work.  Nearly  all  had  had  several 
months'  practice  in  introspective  reporting,  each  having  learned, 
previous  to  the  experiments,  a  large  number  of  series  of  nonsense 
syllables  and  other  kinds  of  material  and  having  had  considerable 
practice  in  describing  their  mental  imagery  in  various  sorts  of 
mental  tasks.  After  each  test  in  the  present  experiments  the  sub- 


66  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

jects  wrote  a  full  account  of  the  functions  employed  in  the  learning, 
such  as  the  kinds  of  imagery  employed,  the  kinds  of  'aids'  used  and 
how,  their  attitude  toward  the  work,  the  satisfyingness  and  annoy- 
ingness  of  different  methods,  the  fatigability  of  different  methods, 
and  the  like.  Reports  from  the  children  were  secured  on  many  of 
these  points  also.  Wherever  practicable  the  introspective  accounts 
were  checked  up  or  tested  by  manipulation  of  the  data  already  at 
hand  or  by  new  experiments  devised  to  fit  the  case,  and  the  results 
of  other  studies  have  been  freely  drawn  upon. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  results,  a  few  cautions  should  be  indi- 
cated. In  the  first  place,  individual  differences  play  a  large  role. 
No  single  individual  at  any  time  is  likely  to  make  use  of  all  the 
minor  functions  that  will  be  described.  Some  subjects  place  more 
emphasis  upon  certain  functions,  some  upon  others,  and  the  same 
individual  usually  changes  his  method  to  some  extent  according  to 
the  nature  of  the  material  and  the  like.  More  constant  differences 
among  individuals  due  to  earlier  training  in  learning  methods  or  to 
memory  types  will  be  mentioned.  But  just  as  we  found  in  the  pre- 
ceding section  no  very  sharp  differences  in  mental  type,  and  no 
definite  cases  in  which  reading  proved  to  be  superior  to  recitation, 
so  we  shall  find  that  typical  methods  of  learning  contain  the  main 
functions  employed  by  nearly  all  learners. 

A  second  caution  is  that  wholesale  conclusions  from  results 
obtained  mainly  from  adults  should  not  be  made  to  apply  to  the 
learning  of  children.  Necessarily  the  introspective  accounts  are 
largely  those  of  adults,  but  the  reports  of  children  have  also  been 
considered  to  some  extent,  and  where  possible,  introspective  accounts 
have  been  verified  by  objective  data  obtained  from  children.  That 
the  minor  functions  employed  by  children  should  correspond  closely 
to  those  of  adults  has  already  been  indicated  by  the  fact  that  the 
results  of  the  exercise  of  the  two  general  functions  have  been  very 
similar  for  both  classes  of  subjects. 

With  these  precautions  in  mind,  a  consideration  of  the  various 
activities,  aids,  and  attitudes  involved  in  learning  and  recalling  any 
material  will  now  be  taken  up,  special  attention  being  given  to  the 
differences  that  appear  according  to  whether  the  method  of  learning 
is  reading  or  recitation. 

Nearly  all  reports,  in  the  first  place,  agree  in  emphasizing  the 
fact  that  learning  even  a  series  of  sixteen  or  twenty  nonsense 
syllables  is  far  from  a  simple  mechanical  task.  The  number  and 
variety  of  associative  aids  is  remarkable.  Where  adults  go  to  their 
wit's  end  for  such  associations  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  they 
assist  learning.  A  consideration  of  such  aids  is  perhaps  a  good 
place  to  begin. 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  67 

In  general  it  may  be  said  that  such  aids  to  learning  may  be  of 
two  sorts:  one  which  is  found  in  the  material  itself,  needing  only 
to  be  noted  and  employed,  and  another  sort  which  is  worked  into 
the  material  by  the  learner.  Of  either  sort  some  may  be  marked 
off  as  motor  in  character  and  others  as  perceptual. 

ARTICULATION 

Although  the  tests  for  learning  were  always  written,  the  majority 
of  adult  subjects  reported  that  practice  in  accurate  pronunciation 
of  the  material  was  an  aid  in  learning.  This  was  found  to  be  par- 
ticularly true  in  the  case  of  nonsense  material  which  was  difficult 
to  articulate.  Subjects  report  that  the  motor  and  auditory  elements 
of  the  words  were  secured  better  from  reciting,  especially  when  the 
material  offers  great  difficulty  in  pronunciation.  The  learner  is 
likely  to  begin  by  carefully  articulating  the  material  to  himself 
while  reading,  but  if  the  reading  is  prolonged  too  long,  these  func- 
tions are  likely  to  be  neglected.  In  many  cases  the  explanation 
given  for  this  is  that  they  were  able  to  move  down  the  series  of 
syllables  more  easily  without  articulating,  depending  more  upon  a 
visual  imprinting  of  the  data.  In  recitation  this  is  rarely  the  case. 
When  they  attempt  to  recite  the  material,  the  articulation  is  a 
most  natural  and  in  most  cases  an  essential  act.  The  reproduction 
and  practice  of  the  motor  act  is  an  aid  to  learning.  The  school 
children  found  considerable  difficulty  in  pronouncing  the  syllables, 
and  for  them  actual  articulation  was  more  essential.  The  members 
of  the  sixth  and  eighth  grades  in  answer  to  the  question:  "Why  are 
the  syllables  so  hard  to  learn?"  wrote,  many  of  them,  "Because 
they  are  hard  to  say."  They  also  reported  that  they  liked  the 
recitation  because  it  gave  them  a  better  chance  "to  see  if  they 
could  say  them."  Movements  of  the  lips,  sometimes  without, 
although  generally  with  whispering,  especially  in  the  lower  grades, 
were  very  marked  in  the  recitation  part  of  the  learning  period. 

ACCENTS   AND    RHYTHMS 

Articulation  is  usually  accompanied  by  accenting  or  stressing 
certain  syllables  or  words,  according  to  the  report  of  nearly  all 
subjects.  The  following  serve  as  samples.  Subject  Rs  in  one  test 
reported  accenting  syllables  one,  five,  nine,  thirteen,  and  seventeen 
in  the  series,  syllables  five  and  nine  being  more  strongly  accented 
than  the  others.  Subject  Py  accented  every  third  syllable.  Sub- 
ject Sn  accented  every  fourth  syllable  strongly  and  every  second 
syllable  less  strongly.  Subject  Bn  reported  an  increasing  accent 
within  groups  of  four  syllables,  the  last  being  most  strongly  accented, 
followed  by  a  drop  to  the  minimum  on  the  fifth.  Sometimes  these 


68  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

accents  are  obvious  to  an  observer  who  may  notice  the  accompany- 
ing motor  activities  such  as  nodding  the  head,  tapping  the  finger, 
or  thumping  the  foot.  That  the  children  employ  such  accents  was 
usually  evident  from  such  signs  and  was  usually  indicated  by  the 
whispering  which  accompanied  the  learning. 

The  value  of  such  accents  lies  in  the  fact  that  a  syllable  comes  to 
be  associated  with  its  accent  and  the  act  of  accenting  tends  to  call 
up  the  syllable.  Although  individuals  show  great  differences  in 
their  choice  of  accents  and  the  same  individual  may  often  employ 
different  accents  according  to  the  material  being  studied,  in  any 
one  lesson  the  accentuation  is  usually  constant  and  assists  learning 
through  this  tendency  to  repeat  the  same  motor  activity  which 
acts  as  a  frame-work  upon  which  the  syllables  may  be  affixed. 

Such  accentuation  should,  however,  be  considered  in  connection 
with  the  almost  universal  employment  of  rhythm  in  the  learning  of 
a  series  of  syllables.  M tiller  and  Schumann,1  Meumann2,  and  others 
have  shown  the  value  obtained  from  the  employment  of  rhythm  in 
learning.  The  kind  of  rhythm,  like  the  kind  of  accentuation,  varies 
with  individuals  and  materials.  In  learning  a  series  of  twenty 
nonsense  syllables,  subject  At  divides  the  material  into  feet  of  three 
syllables,  the  first  being  long  and  accented,  the  two  following  unac- 
cented and  short  /  w  w  | l  u  w  with  a  pause  between 

groups.  Subject  Py  uses  an  identical  rhythm.  Subject  Sn  em- 
ploys a  trochaic  measure  with  two  pairs  combined  into  a  measure 
of  four  by  placing  greater  accentuation  on  the  third  and  seventh 

than  on  the  first  and  fifth u /  ^j  \ w /  ^j  \  .  Subject 

Tr  employs  a  measure  of  four  feet,  a  long  accented  syllable  fol- 
lowed by  three  short  unaccented  syllables  with  a  pause  between 
measures, /  w  w  w  | !  w  u  u  |  . 

According  to  the  reports  of  most  individuals,  the  employment  of 
such  rhythms  is  the  most  natural  thing  in  learning  by  recitation,  but 
in  reading  they  are  not  so  frequently  or  easily  used.  Some  report, 
in  the  case  of  learning  by  reading,  that  they  begin  by  arranging 
the  material  for  rhythmical  perusal  with  accents  and  pauses  but 
abandon  the  method  before  the  lesson  is  over  because  it  seems  to 
be  of  no  avail.  It  seemed  that  a  method  employing  more  visual 
factors  and  less  motor  would  work  better ;  their  efforts  were  directed 
to  Mocking  hard'  at  the  syllables  to  assist  them  to  'soak  in*. 
Several  subjects,  however,  reported  that  they  did  use  a  rhythmical 
division  of  the  material  throughout  the  reading,  and  their  opinion 
that  it  did  not  prove  to  be  of  great  value  was  usually  borne  out  by 
the  meagre  results  of  the  final  tests.  "With  my  eyes  on  the  paper," 

1  'Experimentelle  BeitrSge  zur  Untersuchung  des  GedSchtnisses',  Zeitschrift  fiir  Psychologie, 
1894,  6,  pp.  81-191. 

2  The  Psychology  of  Learning,  translated  by  Baird,  1913. 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  69 

says  subject  5,  "it  is  hard  to  do  more  than  just  read  hard  and  think 
about  the  individual  syllables.  I  knew  the  rhythms  and  other  aids 
would  be  of  more  value  if  I  could  only  look  away  from  the  list." 


Auditory  and  Visual  Types  of  Learners 

It  appears  that  there  are  certain  differences  in  method  according 
to  whether  the  learner  relies  more  upon  auditory-motor  elements 
or  upon  visual  elements  in  learning.  In  some  cases  in  which  the 
learning  is  predominantly  of  the  auditory-motor  type,  imprinting 
consists  in  forming  a  series  of  auditory  or  vocal  images  of  the 
whispered  words  or  a  series  of  successive  innervations  of  the  vocal 
muscles,  which  are  often  accompanied  by  sensations  or  images  of 
movements.  The  subject  learns  the  sounds,  muscular  feelings,  and 
rhythmic  sequences  of  the  syllables  which  he  memorizes.  Repro- 
duction may  be  a  sort  of  melody  in  which  the  various  syllables 
assume  their  proper  rhythmical  positions.  Usually  in  reproduction 
the  subject  cannot  get  the  whole  series  in  consciousness  at  once. 
He  must  start  the  series  off  and  let  it  run  its  course.  Now  many  of 
these  subjects  report  that  reading  is  of  value  to  a  certain  point,  but 
if  no  opportunity  for  recitation  is  afforded,  the  latter  part  of  the 
process  of  learning  is  very  much  hampered  and  complete  learning 
seems  impossible.  The  presence  of  the  words  to  the  eye  precludes 
the  subjective  innervations  which  are  essential  for  learning.  A 
different  process  seems  to  be  involved  when  the  visual  stimuli  are 
absent. 

Some  subjects  reported  that  they  made  use  of  visual  imagery  to 
a  much  greater  extent.  They  were  not  so  greatly  hampered  by 
lack  of  recitation.  But  no  one  was  found  who  relied  entirely  upon 
visual  imprinting,  auditory  and  motor  elements  being  always  em- 
ployed as  well.  Of  those  who  relied  to  the  maximum  upon  visual 
imagery,  most  employed  a  rhythmical  division  of  the  material  to 
some  extent.  Such  subjects  divided  up  the  material  into  measures, 
with  a  motor  stressing  of  certain  syllables  coupled  with  a  visualiza- 
tion of  all  of  the  syllables,  especially  those  that  were  accented.  They 
differed  from  the  auditory-motor  learners,  apparently,  only  by 
relying  somewhat  more  upon  visualization  and  less  upon  the  audi- 
tory and  motor  factors.  None  used  visual  imprinting  alone.  In 
the  learning  by  reading  these  subjects  employed  the  visual  factors 
to  the  utmost,  with  the  corresponding  neglect  of  the  auditory  and 
motor  elements.  While  their  results,  as  a  rule,  differed  less  for  the 
two  methods  than  did  those  of  the  auditory-motor  learners,  in  no 
case  were  they  so  efficient  in  tests  permitting  no  recitation  as  in 
the  tests  in  which  recall  was  a  factor. 


7O  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

Just  as  there  was,  among  about  forty  different  adult  subjects, 
none  that  could  be  called  a  purely  visual  learner,  so  there  was  none 
that  seemed  to  rely  entirely  upon  auditory-motor  factors.  Visual- 
ization to  some  extent  usually  entered  into  the  learning  of  the  latter. 
The  differences  were  merely  those  of  emphasis  upon  one  or  another 
factor,  and,  indeed,  among  the  subjects  were  many  who  seemed  to 
be  able  to  employ  now  some  factors,  now  others,  according  to  the 
situation  to  be  met.  In  general,  learning  by  reading  seemed  to 
throw  the  emphasis  upon  the  visual  method. 

LOCALIZATION   AND   NOTING   OF   POSITIONS   OF   ITEMS 

A  number  of  aids  to  memorizing  which  are  more  of  a 
perceptual  than  a  motor  sort  are  usually  employed.  They 
are  closely  connected  with  the  motor  aids  of  articulation,  rhythm, 
etc.  Some  of  these  depend  upon  peculiarities  or  divisions  found 
in  the  material  itself,  while  others  are  worked  into  it  by  the 
subject. 

One  important  matter  is  the  noting  of  the  positions  of  certain, 
syllables.  Such  localizations  seem  always  to  be  an  aid  to  memory. 
Sometimes  localization  is  greatly  aided  by  peculiarities  within  the 
text,  but  often  more  arbitrary  methods  of  obtaining  a  localization 
schema  are  employed.  Some  report  that  they  simply  localize  a 
certain  few  'head-liners'  in  the  series  by  noting  their  positions  in 
visual  space.  Although  they  are  not  able  to  visualize  all  of  the 
items,  a  few  are  made  to  stand  out  plainly,  serving  as  landmarks  to 
which  others  are  attached.  Other  subjects  divide  the  list  into  a 
certain  number  of  parts,  a  few  syllables  thus  being  denoted  by  their 
numerical  positions.  A  few  report  these  localizations  to  be  deter- 
mined by  modulation  of  the  voice  or  dependent  upon  the  rhythm 
that  is  employed.  But  all  report  that  these  localizations  are  an  aid  in 
memorizing  and  that  they  were  more  easily  employed  in  recitation  than 
in  reading.  On  the  introspective  side  such  reports  as  these  are 
found:  (subject  T)  "In  reading  it  was  so  easy  to  glide  through  the 
series  that  I  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  note  any  special  points  of 
interest.  It  seemed  that  I  could  do  more  if  I  just  looked  hard  at 
the  syllables,  covering  up  my  ears  so  that  I  could  do  nothing  but 
look.  But  when  I  began  to  recite  I  found  that  I  had  to  note  certain 
syllables  specially,  which  I  afterwards  used  as  starting  and  stopping 
places."  Evidently,  recitation  tests  the  value  of  the  different  aids 
and  generally  leads  the  learner  to  recognize  the  value  of  those  which 
serve  the  purpose  desired. 

In  order  to  obtain  some  objective  data  on  the  mattei  of  localiza- 
tion, a  test  was  given  for  that  purpose.  Fourteen  graduate  students 
whose  status  and  introspective  training  have  been  described,  acted 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  7! 

as  subjects.  Lists  of  sixteen  nonsense  syllables  were  used  as  mater- 
ial. All  the  subjects  studied  at  the  same  time,  half  of  them  by  the 
reading  method  first  and  half  by  the  recitation  method  first.  Later 
another  experiment  was  given  in  which  each  used  the  other  method. 
Five  minutes  were  devoted  to  the  study  and  the  syllables  were 
written  down  immediately  afterwards.  The  subjects  were  then 
asked  to  indicate  those  whose  positions  they  felt  certain  were 
correct,  those  which  were  doubtful,  and  those  which  they  were 
sure  were  incorrect  in  position.  They  were  then  asked  to  describe 
the  means  or  cues  by  which  they  made  their  judgments.  The 
results  are  shown  in  Table  XXXVIII. 

It  should  first  of  all  be  noted  that  almost  exactly  twice  as  high  a 
score  was  obtained  by  the  recitation  method,  and  this  introduces  a 
factor  which  tends  to  produce  a  better  showing  in  the  matter  of 
accurate  localization  for  the  reading  method.  It  will  be  noticed, 
for  example,  that  many  subjects  in  the  reading  series  were  certain 
of  the  positions  of  only  two  or  three  syllables,  which  were  in  nearly 
every  case  the  first,  or  the  first  and  second,  and  the  last.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  first  and  last  syllables  are  the  easiest  to  learn  and 
to  localize.  In  the  reading  series  these  two  or  three  syllables  form 


TABLE  XXXVIII 
Results  given  in  the  absolute  number  of  syllables 


Subject 

Reading 

Judged 

Really 

Correct 

Doubtful 

Wrong 

Correct 

Wrong 

Score 

Ln. 

2 

2 

0 

I 

3 

7 

Sa. 

3 

2 

0 

2 

3 

13 

Sn. 

3 

4 

I 

4 

4 

17 

Ms. 

2 

I 

2 

2 

3 

13 

J.  M. 

7 

2 

0 

6 

3 

19 

Tr. 

3 

2 

I 

2 

4 

ii 

Wr. 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

10 

Ce. 

4 

2 

I 

5 

2 

16 

Py. 

9 

0 

0 

5 

4 

21 

Gl. 

4 

4 

O 

3 

5 

H 

Mn. 

6 

4 

0 

7 

3 

23 

An. 

6 

3 

0 

4 

5 

18 

At. 

ii 

2 

0 

9 

4 

32 

Rs. 

6 

2 

0 

5 

3 

16 

Average 

4-85 

2.79 

0.50 

4.14 

3-5 

16.4 

Per  cent. 

59-6 

34-3 

6-3 

54-2 

45-8 

RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 
TABLE  XXXVIII— Continued 


Subject 

Recitation 

Judged 

Really 

Correct 

Doubtful 

Wrong 

Correct 

Wrong 

Score 

Ln. 

6 

I 

3 

4 

0 

26 

Sa. 

7 

I 

0 

8 

O 

24 

Sn. 

16 

O 

O 

16 

O 

48 

Ms. 

7 

3 

O 

10 

O 

23 

J.  M. 

8 

i 

2 

8 

3 

30 

Tr. 

13 

2 

0 

14 

i 

46 

Wr. 

4 

5 

0 

4 

5 

24 

Ce. 

12 

2 

0 

13 

i 

42 

Py. 

8 

0 

0 

8 

0 

24 

Gl. 

10 

O 

0 

10 

0 

30 

Mn. 

8 

2 

0 

8 

2 

26 

An. 

7 

2 

O 

7 

2 

25 

At. 

15 

0 

0 

15 

O 

44 

Rs. 

16 

O 

O 

16 

O 

48 

Average 

9.64 

1-34 

0-34 

10.07 

I  .0 

32.85 

Per  cent. 

85-1 

ii.  8 

3.1 

90.9 

9-i 

a  larger  portion  of  the  whole  number  written  down  than  in  the 
recitation  series. 

In  spite  of  this  advantage,  the  subjects,  after  learning  by  reading, 
felt  certain  of  the  positions  of  but  fifty-nine  and  six-tenths  per  cent, 
of  the  syllables  written  down,  as  compared  to  eighty-five  and  one- 
tenth  per  cent,  in  the  recitation  series.  The  reading  series  is  con- 
spicuous with  respect  to  the  number  of  'doubtful'  cases,  which 
amount  to  thirty-four  and  three-tenths  per  cent,  as  compared  to 
eleven  and  eight-tenths  per  cent,  for  the  recitation  series,  or  three  to 
one.  So  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  subjects  are  more  confident  of 
their  opinions  in  the  recitation  series.  The  data  also  show  that  a 
much  larger  number  of  the  syllables  learned  by  recitation  are  in 
correct  position  (ninety-one  per  cent.)  than  in  the  reading  series 
(fifty-four  per  cent.)-  Another  important  fact  appears,  namely, 
that  the  judgments  after  learning  by  recitation  are  not  only  more 
accurate  but  also  more  conservative  than  after  learning  by  reading. 
As  to  the  first  point,  while  fifty-nine  and  six-tenths  per  cent,  of  the 
syllables  written  down  after  learning  by  reading  were  judged  to  be 
in  correct  position,  only  fifty-four  and  two- tenths  per  cent,  actually 
were,  while  in  the  recitation  series,  of  those  written  a  larger  per- 
centage (eighty-five  and  one-tenth)  was  judged  to  be  in  correct 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  73 

position,  and  a  still  larger  percentage  (ninety  and  nine- tenths) 
actually  was.  An  examination  of  the  original  data  showed  that  in 
the  reading  series,  of  those  judged  'doubtful'  nearly  all  were  really 
in  an  incorrect  position,  as  were  also  nine  of  the  sixty-eight  certified 
as  'correct'  in  position,  while  in  the  recitation  series  some  of  those 
judged  'doubtful'  were  really  in  a  correct  position,  while  only  two 
cases  out  of  the  total  of  127  judgments  of  'correct  in  position'  were 
wrong.  It  thus  appears  that  after  learning  by  recitation,  the  sub- 
jects are  both  more  accurate  and  more  conservative  in  their  judg- 
ments. 

NOTING   UNUSUAL   CHARACTERISTICS    OF   THE   MATERIAL 

The  remark  was  just  made  that  the  noting  of  unusual  words  and 
characteristics  in  the  material  was  often  an  aid  in  localization.  This 
function  is  of  value  because  it  serves  to  break  up  the  material  into 
units  that  can  be  more  easily  handled.  A  peculiar  word  or  syllable 
becomes  a  center  around  which  other  syllables  are  grouped,  or  it 
may  serve  as  a  starting  and  stopping  place  within  the  series. 

The  kinds  of  peculiarities  noted  are  myriad.  Sometimes  it  is  the 
sound — the  children  especially  are  attracted  by  'funny  sounding' 
syllables.  Sometimes  a  syllable  stands  apart  by  having  the  con- 
sonants each  standing  above  or  below  the  line,  e.  g.,  gop,  lib.  Some- 
times the  fact  that  one  letter  was  printed  light,  or  that  the  whole 
was  blotched  or  blurred,  or  that  a  mark  appeared  on  the  page 
opposite  it,  is  noted.  More  often  the  associations  are  meaningful, 
and  these  will  be  considered  more  fully  in  the  next  section. 

Subjects  report  that  all  such  peculiarities  are  brought  out  more 
clearly  by  reciting  the  material.  They  are  not  so  effectively  brought 
into  play  when  one  is  reading  because  the  words  before  the  eyes 
render  such  aid  unnecessary.  The  thing  to  do  is  simply  to  'look 
hard  and  try  to  avoid  distractions'.  Subject  Fx  reports:  "After 
the  reading  period  was  over  [four  minutes  out  of  eight],  I  could 
remember  only  three  syllables.  I  had  a  hazy  idea  of  some  of  the 
others  but  I  couldn't  quite  get  them.  But  by  picking  out  two  queer 
looking  syllables,  the  sixth  and  the  tenth,  I  was  soon  able  to  fill  in 
those  between." 

MEANINGS   OF   TERMS   AND   RELATIONS   OF   PARTS 

Subjects  report  that  the  nonsense  syllables  take  on  more  meaning 
during  recitation.  Some  feel  that  in  merely  reading  they  take  the 
syllable  as  it  stands;  they  may  notice  its  form  and  position  but 
they  do  not  try  so  hard  to  make  it  mean  something.  The  meanings 
come  out  more  clearly  when  they  are  forced  to  reconstruct  it  in 
recall.  The  kinds  of  meanings  are  various.  Sometimes  it  is  a  far- 


74  RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

fetched  resemblance  to  some  familiar  word,  such  as  toq  =  toque, 
soy  =  say,  etc.  Sometimes  two  words  are  combined  to  form  a 
single  word,  such  as  sor-dit  =  sordid,  jor-kih  =  jerky.  Often  a 
resemblance  to  a  familiar  foreign  word  is  seized  upon,  qos  =  Latin 
quos,  or  a  word  is  associated  with  a  foreign  equivalent,  dit  =  French 
'he  says'.  Again  a  syllable  is  employed  as  part  of  some  familiar 
word,  as  gov  in  governor,  and  still  more  common  were  associations 
between  the  syllables  and  the  'nicknames'  of  known  persons.  Some- 
times the  recurrence  of  words  having  a  similar  look  or  sound  is 
noted,  such  as  toq  and  doc,  and  occasionally  the  first  letters  of 
successive  syllables  are  combined  to  form  a  new  word.  Sometimes 
the  associations  are  less  definite;  the  syllable  merely  feels  big,  or 
dull,  or  bright,  or  buzzy,  e.  g.,  viz  feels  'buzzy',  likewise  zop;  dit  is 
short  and  snappy,  qos  seems  to  be  'such  a  mouth  full*. 

In  the  case  of  sense  material,  recitation  leads  to  a  more  thorough 
understanding,  both  of  the  minor  details  and  of  the  meaning  of  the 
thing  as  a  whole.  They  size  up  the  men  described  more  definitely. 
One  subject  reports,  "In  reading  I  was  dealing  more  with  a  lot  of 
details,  which  I  handled  mostly  in  a  verbal  way.  There  was  no 
flesh  and  blood  about  the  men.  But  during  recitation,  I  could 
really  picture  them  as  men  of  [such  and  such  age,  size,  etc.]."  It 
appears  that  this  better  grasp  of  the  meaning  of  the  material 
is  an  aid  to  memory.  In  this  connection  Meumann  writes:3  "In 
the  case  of  coherent  and  meaningful  material  the  chief  memorial 
support  consists  in  the  apprehension  of  the  meaning  and  the 
logical  context." 

CHANGING  METHODS   DURING   A   STUDY   PERIOD 

A  few  subjects  reported  that  they  believed  one  advantage  of 
recitation  was  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  they  could  shift  from  one 
kind  of  imagery  to  another  more  readily.  In  reading  they  were 
more  likely  to  depend  on  visual  imagery,  or,  as  they  reported,  to 
use  no  imagery  at  all,  but  simply  look  at  the  syllables,  while  in 
recitation  they  would  employ  now  one  sort  of  imagery,  now  another, 
or  more  accurately  emphasize  different  sorts  of  imagery  at  different 
times.  One  subject  reports:  "Sometimes  I  tried  to  recall  by  seeing 
the  words  in  my  mind's  eye,  and  sometimes  by  trying  to  remember 
how  it  sounded,  and  again  by  trying  to  say  several  words  quickly 
without  imagery.  I  think  this  helped  since  it  made  the  work  more 
interesting  and  allowed  me  to  resort  to  different  methods  when  I 
got  stuck."  This  shifting  from  one  method  to  another  may  have 
made  the  work  more  absorbing,  but  its  general  value  as  an  aid  in 

3  The  Psychology  of  Learning,  p.  297. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  75 

learning  may  well  be  doubted.  At  all  events,  the  greater  freedom  to 
employ  any  method  that  seems  desirable  is  a  notable  characteristic 
of  learning  by  recitation. 

PATTERNS  AND   GROUPINGS 

Closely  connected  with  the  previous  finding  that  recitation  leads 
to  better  articulation,  accentuation,  pauses,  vocal  inflections,  use  of 
melody  and  rhythms,  as  well  as  to  better  localization,  noting  of 
peculiarities  and  meanings  in  the  material,  is  the  finding  that 
recitation  tends  more  toward  a  division  and  grouping  of  the  mater- 
ial. In  reading,  the  syllables  are  handled  more  as  isolated  terms; 
the  learner  tries  to  imprint  each  by  itself.  In  recitation  more  of  an 
attempt  is  made  to  make  the  material  over  into  some  sort  of  pattern, 
a  more  or  less  highly  organized  structure.  The  patterns  differ 
greatly  among  individuals  and  vary  according  to  the  list  of  syllables 
used.  Very  often  the  structure  is  decidedly  of  a  rhythmic  character, 
associations  being  formed  between  accented  terms,  their  positions 
and  pauses,  as  we  have  seen.  In  these  cases  the  associations  between 
members  of  a  given  foot  are  particularly  strong,  and  the  feet,  al- 
though they  are  in  the  beginning  relatively  independent,  are  bound 
together  in  various  ways.  Sometimes  the  groups  are  of  unequal 
length,  being  determined  by  the  location  of  syllables  which  for 
various  reasons  stand  out  prominently.  More  often,  of  course,  the 
groups  are  of  equal  size,  including  from  two  to  six  syllables,  usually 
three  or  four. 

Subjects  report  that  this  active  process  of  dividing  up  the  material 
and  making  it  over  into  groups  is  more  easily  done  in  recitation.  It 
is,  however,  very  often  done  in  reading  also,  but  it  is  then  more 
difficult  to  do;  the  divisions  cannot  be  made  so  sharply,  and  the 
ease  of  reading  down  the  series  defeats  their  purpose.  For  example, 
one  subject  (Bn)  whose  results  were  very  poor  in  the  reading  tests, 
said:  "A  certain  amount  of  reading  is  valuable  to  get  acquainted 
with  the  material  and  to  frame  up  a  method  of  attack,  but  there- 
after it  seems  to  do  me  no  good.  I  simply  can't  learn  by  more 
reading,  except  by  taking  a  small  bit  of  the  series,  giving  it  special 
attention  at  one  time  and  later  going  through  it  very  hurriedly. 
The  desire  to  look  away  from  the  paper  to  see  if  I  can  recite  the 
material  is  well  nigh  irresistible."  This  'going  through  it  very 
hurriedly',  which  the  subject  speaks  of,  is  probable  a  very  close 
approach  to  recitation. 

It  thus  appears  that  in  the  reading  series  the  material  is  handled 
more  by  separate  items  than  by  groups.  Less  effort  is  used  to  build 
up  a  structural  whole — there  is  less  organization  of  the  material. 
Subjects  5  and  T  show  in  another  way  an  advantage  of  recitation 


76  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

which  is  dependent  upon  better  organization  of  the  material.  The 
following  figures  give  the  number  of  seconds  for  each  of  a  number 
of  repetitions  in  several  tests. 

Subject  T  reading 

15,  12,  ii,  12,  12,  12,  14,  13,  ii,  15,  16,  13,  ii,    9,  15,  etc. 
14,  13,  10,  12,  ii,  15,  14,  17,  13,  13,  17,    9,  14.  13,  ii,  etc. 

16,  10,  12,  13,  14,  12,  ii,  16,  14,    9,  n,  12,  16,  12,  n,  etc. 

Recitation 

37,  45,  62,  20,  45,  12,  45,  36,    6,  50,  35,  4 
27,    5.  47,  52,  46,    8,  31,  45,  33,  12,    6 
47,  27,  53,  12,  34,    5,  34,    2,  26,  53,  35 

Subject  S  reading 

24,  24,  18,  24,  32,  22,  25,  34,  26,  30 
18,  14,  16,  18,  14,  20,  25,  23,  24,  19 

Recitation 

82,  90,  42,  72,  12,  87,  36,  12,  etc. 
72,  80,  36,    8,  46,  90,  42,    6,  45 

In  the  first  place  it  will  be  noted  that  the  rates  for  readings  are 
very  uniform.  The  subject  reads  and  rereads  in  much  the  same 
way,  giving  as  we  have  seen  about  equal  attention  to  all  syllables. 
But  in  the  case  of  recitations,  the  rates  of  the  repetitions  are  varied, 
the  average  rate  being  slower  with  a  much  higher  mean  variation. 
The  subjects  were  able  to  account  for  this,  in  part  at  least.  Usually 
the  material  was  divided  into  groups,  different  ones  being  featured 
at  different  times.  To  begin  with,  the  first  group  was  hit  hard, 
perhaps  also  the  last  group,  with  the  result  that  these  two  groups 
were  earliest  learned.  When  these  were  fairly  well  under  control, 
attention  was  given  to  the  second  group,  and  so  the  learning  pro- 
gressed. The  variations  in  the  total  time  for  repetitions  are  due  to 
the  varied  treatment  of  some  of  the  groups.  Usually  a  group  was 
perused  very  slowly  when  it  first  became  an  object  of  attack  and 
once  having  been  fairly  well  mastered  was  passed  over  very  rapidly, 
except  that  now  and  then  a  more  lengthy  and  more  thorough 
review  might  be  given. 

Of  special  interest  and  importance  are  the  very  short  repetitions 
of  four,  five,  six,  eight,  etc.  seconds  which  occur  at  various  intervals, 
being  more  numerous  near  the  end  of  the  study  period.  The  sub- 
jects reported  that  these  amounted  to  very  hasty  reviews  of  the 
whole  series.  In  the  beginning  they  served  the  purpose  of  providing 
a  better  acquaintance  with  the  material  as  a  whole,  while  later  on 
they  usually  amounted  to  very  hasty  surveys  of  the  material  already 
learned,  either  with  or  without  much  attention  to  the  unlearned  sylla- 
bles. They  served  a  two-fold  purpose  of  economizing  time  and  of  work- 
ing over  the  lesson  as  a  whole.  In  the  latter  capacity  they  served  the 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  77 

purpose  of  building  up  associations  between  the  various  groups  of 
items  and  perfecting  the  organization  of  the  whole  structure. 

G.  E.  M tiller,4  who  has  made  an  extensive  study  of  learning 
methods,  describes  in  the  course  of  memorizing  series  of  digits,  non- 
sense syllables,  etc.,  several  stages  in  the  organization  and  grouping 
of  the  material.  With  simultaneous  presentation,  the  first  stage  is 
a  'collective  apprehension'  of  the  row  of  items.  This  stage  affords 
opportunity  to  secure  an  acquaintance  with  the  material  generally 
and  to  observe  such  near-lying  cues  as  there  may  be  that  can  be 
employed  in  dividing  up  the  material  for  further  learning.  A 
second  stage  is  called  'collective  successive  apprehension',  which 
consists  of  'a  speedy  perusal  of  the  individual  members  of  the  com- 
plexes with  attention'.5  The  result  is  that  'the  two  successive 
members  of  one  and  the  same  group  are  bound  together  by  associa- 
tions stronger  than  the  associations  between  successive  members  of 
different  groups'.  This  is  followed  by  a  third  stage,  which  consists 
of  an  'inner  reconstruction'  of  the  earlier  apprehended  groups. 
Usually  recitation  is  the  chief  constituent  of  the  third  stage.  The 
subject  endeavors  to  reproduce  the  material  without  looking  at  it, 
and  this  leads  to  the  employment  of  the  various  kinds  of  aids  that 
have  been  previously  mentioned.  The  learner  must  select  the 
bonds  that  are  requisite  to  reproduction  and  exercise  them  until, 
once  set  into  operation,  they  will  run  their  course  without  external 
assistance.  Of  course,  during  the  recitation,  references  may  be 
made  to  the  text  for  purposes  of  prompting  as  well  as  for  review  of 
material  already  partly  learned.  But  the  'inner  reconstruction'  of 
the  material  is  the  important  function.  Ktihn  observed  as  the  most 
serious  deficiency  of  learning  by  reading  the  almost  unavoidable 
tendency  to  neglect  many  of  the  functions  which  are  essential  to 
recall,  functions  which  as  a  rule  can  operate  only  in  voluntary 
recall.  He  writes:6  "Therefore  we  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
recitation  is  better  because  it  leads  to  a  more  fundamental,  many- 
sided  working-over  ('Verarbeiten')  of  the  material." 

The  typical  learner,  we  have  seen,  breaks  up  the  material  into 
smaller  groups  which  are  dealt  with  as  units.  Similar  to  the  present 
findings,  Kiihn  noted  that  such  manipulation  of  the  material  was 
more  characteristic  of  recitation.  He  states:  "By  learning  with 
recitation  the  construction  of  groups  can  be  carried  on  more  readily 
than  through  reading.  Many  persons  say,  in  fact,  that  in  really 
pure  reading  such  a  construction  of  groups  is  impossible."7 

4  'Zur  Analyse  der  Gedachtnistatigkeit  und  des  Vorstellungsverlaufes',  Zeitschrift  filr  Psy- 
chologie,  1911,  Supplementary  vol.  5,  pp.  253-403. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  254. 

6  'Uber  Einpragung  durch  Lesen  und  durch  Rezitieren',  Zeilschrift  filr  Psychologic,  1914,  68, 
p.  443.  1  Ibid.,  p.  440. 


78  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

The  manner  in  which  these  groups  are  built  up,  the  determina- 
tion of  their  number,  size,  and  distribution,  has  already  been  de- 
scribed. In  general,  the  nature  of  the  grouping  depends  upon  the 
kind  and  length  of  the  material  and  upon  a  host  of  peculiarities 
which  may  be  found  within  it.  Great  differences  are  also  found 
among  different  individuals  and  for  the  same  individual  at  different 
times. 

The  value  of  such  groupings  of  the  material  as  an  aid  in  learning 
has  been  pointed  out  by  Miiller.  They  are  in  brief: 

1.  Although  it  is  impossible  to  grasp  in  one  span  of  attention  a  whole  list  of 
items,  the  smaller  groups  can  be  utilized  as  units  for  attention,  thus  leading  to 
economy  of  time  and  energy  in  apprehending  the  whole  group. 

2.  The  factor  of  localization  comes  more  effectively  into  play.     One  cannot 
remember  the  positions  of  each  member  of  a  series  of  twenty  nonsense  syllables, 
but  he  can  remember  the  position  of  four  or  five  groups,  each  being  treated  as 
a  unit. 

3.  Each  group  comes  to  have  its  own  individuality  and  thus  serves  as  a  center 
of  attack. 

4.  Groupings  assist  rhythmical  and  melodic  perusal. 

5.  Groups  as  such  are  more  interesting  than  a  series  of  single  items  which  the 
learner  soon  becomes  familiar  with,  as  such,  and  then  permits  attention  to  flag. 
The  groups,  as  interesting  problems  to  be  mastered,  arouse  and  direct  attention. 

When  the  series  is  quite  long,  it  is  not  enough  that  the  individual 
groups  should  be  mastered,  but  the  series  of  groups  must  be  bound 
together  by  additional  associations.  Sometimes  the  localization  of 
the  groups  in  visual  space  or  numerically  is  sufficient,  but  very 
often  other  associative  or  mnemonic  aids  are  employed. 

Our  previous  analysis  of  the  learning  process  would  fit  very 
nicely  into  Miiller's  scheme  of  three  stages.  That  the  reading 
method  should  be  employed  to  some  extent  in  the  beginning  has 
been  pointed  out  by  Miiller — in  fact,  the  first  two  stages  are  entirely 
dependent  upon  reading.  The  third  stage  of  'inner  reconstruction' 
is,  as  its  name  implies,  primarily  a  stage  of  attempted  recitation. 

To  limit  the  learner  entirely  to  the  reading  method  precludes 
the  possibilities  of  the  active  stage  of  'inner  reconstruction'  and 
thus  greatly  hampers  the  learning.  The  natural  tendency  of  the 
learner  to  resort  to  this  latter  method  of  study  is  shown  in  the  oft 
repeated  statement  that  the  desire  to  do  so  was  'well  nigh  irresist- 
able'  and  the  like.  Most  subjects  can,  to  varied  degrees,  continue 
to  learn  by  reading,  but  there  are  some,  perhaps,  who  can  advance 
only  to  a  limited  extent.  Kiihn  found,8 -in  fact,  that  after  a  certain 
number,  additional  readings  may  prove  not  only  to  be  of  no  value 
for  imprinting,  but  may  be  positively  harmful.  For  example,  one 
subject  (Got.)  required  after 

s  Op.  cit.,  p.  477- 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  79 

40  readings,  17  additional  recitations  to  learn 

25  readings,    9  additional  recitations  to  learn 

12  readings;    6  additional  recitations  to  learn 

2  readings,    5  additional  recitations  to  learn 

Similar  results  were  found  for  three  other  subjects.  Such  tests, 
however,  have  been  tried  with  several  subjects  in  the  present  study, 
but  in  no  case  wrere  such  negative  results  found,  although  two  sub- 
jects were  found  who  were  unable  by  reading  alone  to  completely 
master  a  long  series  of  nonsense  syllables. 

HELPS   MORE   CONSTANT   AND   MORE   NATURAL  IN   RECITATION 

It  was  pointed  out  earlier  that  recitation  leads  more  successfully 
to  the  employment  of  various  sorts  of  aids,  such  as  modulations  of 
the  voice,  rhythms,  pauses,  meaningful  associations,  and  the  like. 
An  additional  point  very  often  reported  is  that  such  aids  not  only 
come  into  play  more  readily  in  recitation  but  that  they  are  more 
constant.  During  reading,  some  report  that  they  emphasize  now 
one  syllable,  now  another;  they  now  use  one  rhythm,  later  another; 
the  sight  of  the  word  suggests  now  one  association,  later  another. 
In  recitation,  when  once  adopted,  the  aids  are  more  constant.  This 
is  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  most  learners  do  not  like  to  refer  to 
the  text  unless  it  is  absolutely  necessary,  and  since  recall  is  entirely 
dependent  upon  the  use  of  some  association,  a  connection  once 
initiated  is  likely  to  be  invariably  employed.  During  reading, 
since  the  syllable  in  each  case  is  present  to  the  eye,  the  previously 
observed  association,  being  less  essential,  is  not  so  deeply  impressed; 
other  connections,  depending  upon  the  attitude  of  the  subject  at 
the  moment,  are  likely  to  overrule  it  with  the  result  that  a  new 
association  is  substituted.  This,  in  essence,  is  what  many  report: 
"It  is  hard  to  keep  my  mind  on  the  work  in  reading.  Different 
influences  seem  to  come  in  continually  that  give  the  material  a  new 
look.  First  a  syllable  means  one  thing  and  later  I  associated  it 
with  something  else."  Subject  Tr  says:  "I  first  thought  of  fab  as 
part  of  fable,  ivab  as  Weber,  etc.,  but  it  was  often  difficult  to  remem- 
ber some  of  them  because  I  didn't  have  to  depend  upon  them."  A 
similar  situation  was  found  in  the  case  of  many  subjects  by  Kiihn, 
who  concluded:9  "The  helps  in  recitation  seem  to  be  more  natural, 
while  in  reading  they  appear  manifold  and  artificial." 

TESTING   THE   LEARNING 

In  an  earlier  section,  evidence  was  found  that  there  was  a  greater 
certainty  as  to  what  was  known  when  recitation  was  employed  in 
the  learning.  This,  of  course,  is  not  only  true  at  the  completion  of 

9  Op.  cit.,  p.  440. 


8O  RECITATION  AS  A   FACTOR   IN  MEMORIZING 

the  learning  but  during  the  various  stages.  In  addition  to  the  ob- 
jective evidence  already  presented  (p.  71  f.)  are  the  reports  of  many 
subjects  that  when  they  read  only,  they  are  not  at  all  certain  how 
much  of  the  material  is  known  or  how  well  it  is  known.  They  may 
have  a  general  feeling  that  they  can  recite  a  certain  part  of  the 
material,  but  they  cannot  be  sure  until  they  have  tried.  The 
recitation,  of  course,  constitutes  the  test. 

One  of  the  values  of  recitation  is  that  it  gives  exact  knowledge  of 
the  results  that  are  being  produced  and  serves  to  throw  into  relief 
the  efficacy  of  the  different  aids  that  are  being  employed  as  a  means 
to  learning  the  lesson.  Recitation  leads  more  surely  to  the  selection 
and  repetition  of  the  desirable  bonds  and  to  the  elimination  of  the 
unfit.  In  other  types  of  learning,  Judd  has  shown  that  knowledge 
of  results  of  practice  is  essential  to  improvement.10  He  found  that 
practice  in  locating  the  continuation  of  sloped  lines,  part  of  which 
was  concealed  from  the  subject,  produced  no  improvement  when 
the  results  of  the  practice  were  not  disclosed,  but  improvement 
immediately  resulted  when  the  subject  was  permitted  to  view 
briefly  the  results  of  his  efforts. 

In  an  earlier  section  (see  p.  71  f.)  it  was  found  that  recitation 
leads  not  only  to  better  localization  of  the  syllables  but  it  also 
leads  to  a  more  accurate  knowledge  of  the  correctness  of  the  posi- 
tion of  syllables.  In  learning  by  recitation,  out  of  127  judgments 
of  'correct  in  position'  but  two  were  wrong,  while  in  the  reading 
series  nine  out  of  sixty-eight  such  judgments  were  wrong. 

In  order  to  find  if  there  is  a  greater  certainty  with  respect  to  the 
form  of  the  syllables  without  regard  to  their  position,  another 
similar  experiment  was  made.  Eleven  graduate  students  acted  as 
subjects  in  two  tests  of  five  minutes  each,  one  by  the  reading  method 
and  one  by  the  recitation  method.  Half  of  the  subjects  took  the 
former  and  half  the  latter  test  first,  the  order  being  reversed  for 
the  second  test.  Table  XXXIX  gives  the  results. 

In  the  first  place,  a  greater  number  of  syllables  are  written  down 
after  the  recitation  test  than  after  the  reading  test  (twelve  and  two- 
tenths  as  compared  to  eight).  The  absolute  number  judged  correct 
in  the  recitation  series  is  about  twice  the  number  so  judged  in  the 
reading  series,  eleven  and  three-tenths  as  compared  to  six  syllables. 
Likewise,  the  number  of  syllables  that  were  actually  correct  was 
about  twice  as  great  for  the  method  including  recitation,  eleven  and 
four-tenths  as  compared  to  five  and  fifty-four  one-hundredths.  Of 
the  total  number  of  syllables  written  down  in  the  reading  series 
seventy-five  per  cent,  were  judged  to  be  correct,  while  in  the  recita- 

10  'Practice  without  Knowledge  of  Results',  Psychology  Review  Monographs,  1905,  7,  pp. 
185-198. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


81 


tion  series  ninety- two  and  six- tenths  per  cent,  were  judged  to  be 
correct.  That  is  to  say,  there  was  a  greater  assurance  of  correctness 
when  the  learning  involved  recitation.  Moreover,  in  the  recitation 
tests,  of  those  written  down  ninety-three  and  four-tenths  per  cent, 
were  actually  correct  as  compared  to  sixty-nine  and  two-tenths  per 
cent,  for  the  reading  series,  indicating  again  that  there  is  less 
certainty  about  the  knowledge  of  results  during  reading.  It  should 
be  noted  that  in  the  reading  series  there  is  a  considerable  discrep- 

TABLE  XXXIX 

Results  given  in  number  of  syllables  correct  in  form  without  regard  to  position 


Subject 

After  five  minutes  reading 

After  five  minutes  recitation 

Number 
written 

Number 
judged 
correct 

Number 
actually 
correct 

Number 

written 

Number 
judged 
correct 

Number 
actually 
correct 

At. 

13 

13 

II 

16 

15 

14-5 

Rs. 

8 

8 

6 

16 

16 

16 

Py. 

9 

7 

7 

10 

9 

9-5 

Tr. 

7 

5 

5 

15 

14 

H 

GL 

8 

4 

5 

10 

10 

10 

Mn. 

ii 

6 

7 

12 

10 

10 

An. 

8 

4 

5 

12 

ii 

ii 

E.  M. 

5 

4 

4 

10 

9 

9 

J.  M. 

7 

6 

4 

II 

9 

10 

Sn. 

7 

5 

4 

16 

16 

16 

Sa. 

5 

4 

3 

7 

6 

6 

Average 

8.0 

6.0 

5-54 

12.2 

ii.  3 

11.4 

P.  E. 

1-4 

1-5 

i-3 

2.0 

2-3 

2.2 

Per  cent,  of  number 

written 

75-0 

69.2 

92.6 

93-4 

Per  cent,  of  number 

judged  correct 

92-3 

100.  0 

ancy  between  the  number  of  syllables  'judged  correct'  and  the 
number  'actually  correct';  while  for  the  recitation  method  these 
two  figures  are  almost  identical.  This  means  that  after  you  have 
studied  a  lesson  by  the  recitation  method  you  are  practically  certain 
how  well  you  know  it,  but  after  you  have  studied  by  reading  you 
are  not  only  uncertain  about  your  knowledge  but  your  honest 
opinion  is  likely  to  be  an  overestimation  of  your  attainment.  A 
closer  examination  of  the  table,  however,  will  reveal  the  fact  that 
individuals  differ  in  this  respect.  Under  the  reading  method,  three 
people  correctly  estimate  their  knowledge  (i.  e.,  the  number  of 
syllables  'judged  correct'  equals  the  number  'actually  correct'); 


82 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


five  people  overestimate  their  knowledge ;  while  three  underestimate 
their  knowledge.  Confronted  by  this  general  uncertainty  of  results, 
some  subjects  are  likely  to  be  very  conservative  in  their  judgments 
and  others  much  less  so,  the  general  result  being  an  overestimation 
of  attainment. 

In  the  case  of  the  recitation  series,  eight  subjects  correctly  esti- 
mate their  knowledge,  while  one  overestimates  and  two  under- 
estimate their  knowledge.  The  sum  of  the  differences  between  the 
number  'actually  correct'  and  the  number  'judged  correct'  is  two 
syllables  for  the  recitation  series  and  eleven  for  the  reading  series. 

On  the  whole  then,  learning  by  reading  makes  it  very  difficult 
to  estimate  one's  attainment,  while  learning  through  recitation 
leads  to  very  accurate  knowledge  of  results.  This  should  be  thought 
of  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  in  our  tests  the  amount  learned 
by  recitation  is  about  twice  as  great,  a  fact  which  can  only  emphasize 
the  greater  accuracy  in  that  case.  Other  things  being  equal,  we  should 
expect  twice  as  many  errors  of  judgment  in  the  recitation  results. 

Some  evidence  can  be  obtained  from  the  children's  data  to 
indicate  a  similar  result.  From  the  data  of  several  classes  was 
computed  the  total  number  of  syllables  written  down,  and  the 
total  number  of  syllables  that  were  correct  in  form.  From  the 
various  methods  of  study  including  recitation,  certain  ones  were 
chosen  in  order  to  make  practice  effects,  etc.,  balance  up  with  the 
reading  series.  The  following  is  a  sample  result,  based  on  forty 
pupils  of  the  sixth  grade. 


Reading 
Written  down         Correct 

Recitation 
Written  down          Correct 

Number  of  syllables 
Relative  number 

7.12 
100.0 

4-5 
63-2 

II  .12 
100.  0 

9.O6 

81.4 

The  results  show  a  clear  superiority  in  favor  of  the  recitation 
method  of  learning. 

A  similar  result  was  found  with  sense  material,  a  sample  of 
which  follows,  showing  in  the  case  of  thirty-nine  eighth-grade 
pupils  the  number  of  details  of  facts  written  and  the  number 
correct. 


Reading 
Written  down           Correct 

Recitation 
Written  down         Correct 

Number  of  facts 
Relative  number 

27.2 
100.  0 

22.6 
83.1 

28.7    ' 
100.  0 

26.1 
90.9 

RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  83 

Objective  data,  thus,  support  the  introspective  opinion,  previ- 
ously given,  that  one  has  better  knowledge  of  results  in  learning  by 
recitation  and  that  this  is  an  aid  in  learning.  Some  of  the  concrete 
ways  in  which  this  knowledge  may  be  of  assistance  may  be  briefly 
considered. 

First:  There  is  a  feeling  of  satisfyingness  in  the  certainty  of 
progress,  in  knowing  that  headway  is  actually  being  made.  Con- 
versely, it  is  annoying  to  be  uncertain  whether  the  study  is  bring- 
ing returns.  The  satisfyingness  results  in  better  attention  and 
better  application  to  the  work,  while  annoyingness  is  distracting 
and  hampers  learning.  Subject  An  gives  a  typical  report:  "It 
[reading]  was  discouraging  because  I  did  not  feel  that  I  was  making 
much  progress  during  the  last  part  of  it.  There  was  no  way  to  tell." 

Second:  A  certain  saving  of  energy  may  result  from  knowing  what 
parts  of  the  material  are  known  and  what  are  not  known,  a.  Over- 
learning  of  certain  portions  may  be  prevented.  Usually  the  first 
and  last  syllables  are  first  learned  and  when  the  subject  knows  that 
these  are  mastered,  they  can  be  passed  over  hastily  in  subsequent 
perusals,  a  very  slight  amount  of  review  being  sufficient  to  keep 
them  intact.  Subject  Rs  says:  "I  saved  time  during  recitation  by 
skipping  hurriedly  over  the  words  I  already  knew."  b.  An  oppor- 
tunity is  afforded  to  direct  special  attention  to  those  portions  that 
are  still  unlearned.  Subjects  report  that  certain  syllables  offer 
special  difficulty  which  is  often  not  suspected  until  they  endeavor 
to  recite,  c.  The  two  factors  together,  easing  down  on  familiar 
or  learned  portions  and  attending  more  intensely  to  unfamiliar  or 
especially  difficult  portions,  result  in  a  saving  of  energy  in  the  long 
run.  It  makes  the  work  more  absorbing,  and  also  makes  possible 
short  periods  of  relaxation  of  attention  or  breathing  spells,  which 
may  result  in  a  rebound  of  energy  for  learning  the  more  obstinate 
portions. 

ERRONEOUS   RECALL 

It  is  obvious  that  an  attempted  recitation  may  result  not  only 
in  a  failure  to  recall  a  certain  syllable,  but  it  may  also  result  in 
erroneous  recall,  neither  of  which  could  occur  during  reading  in  the 
strict  sense.  If  the  errors  are  too  numerous  or  if  they  are  not  dis- 
covered in  the  case  of  recall,  they  become  a  harmful  rather  than  a 
beneficial  factor  in  learning.  Failures  to  recall  are  very  frequent  in 
some  cases  in  which  the  recitation  is  introduced  too  early,  with  the 
result  that  time  is  frequently  lost  in  unfruitful  endeavor  to  recall 
items  that  are  not  as  yet  sufficiently  fixed  in  mind.  Erroneous 
recalls,  under  the  same  conditions,  are  also  frequent,  but  they  sel- 
dom occur  without  some  feeling  or  indication  of  incorrectness. 


84  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

Many  subjects  report  that  they  profit  much  by  these  mistakes. 
Noting  and  correcting  an  error  helps  to  fix  the  proper  item  in 
mind;  it  receives  better  attention  at  that  moment  and  will  receive 
special  attention  on  the  next  repetition.  Subject  Rs  said  as  a 
sample  concerning  a  test  in  which  recitation  was  begun  after  five 
minutes'  reading:  "Twice  I  failed  on  puv,  each  time  saying  poy 
[evidently  confused  with  soy  which  followed].  But  after  twice  cor- 
recting it,  I  had  it  so  well  in  mind  that  I  will  probably  remember  it 
longer  than  any  other  in  the  series." 

In  connection  with  the  matter  of  unsuccessful  and  erroneous 
recall,  Katzaroff  pointed  out,  as  an  advantage  of  recitation,  a  kind 
of  growing  satisfyingness  in  the  task.  Successful  recall  is  satisfying 
and  failure  is  annoying.  As  we  proceed,  the  proportion  of  satisfy- 
ingness becomes  steadily  greater,  toning  up  the  learner  and  enabling 
him  to  keep  up  interest  and  application  in  spite  of  growing  fatigue. 
He  states:11  "The  learner  is  active,  he  has  to  seek,  he  rejoices  when 
he  has  found  and  is  irritated  at  the  syllables  which  evade  his  call. 
Here  crowd  sentiments  of  affection  for  certain  syllables,  of  antipathy 
for  others,  which  contribute  to  enrich  the  associative  bonds  and 
favor  conservation  and  recall."  One  of  the  workers  in  the  present 
study  similarly  said:  "In  reading,  it  is  the  last  part  of  the  test  that 
is  most  wearisome,  but  in  recitation,  it  becomes  almost  a  pleasure 
as  I  approach  a  mastery  of  the  whole  bunch  of  words." 

UNINTENTIONAL  RECITATION  DURING  THE  READING  TESTS 

A  great  many  of  the  subjects  found  it  difficult  to  resist  their 
natural  tendency  to  recite,  during  the  reading  series;  in  fact, 
the  reading  was  nearly  always  combined  with  more  or  less  recall 
of  an  unintentional,  practically  unavoidable  sort.  The  effort  to 
avoid  reciting  acted  as  a  positive  disturbance  and  source  of  annoy- 
ance, thus  distracting  attention  and  consuming  energy  to  no  pur- 
pose. Subject  Md  speaking  of  the  reading  method  said:  "Very 
difficult  and  disagreeable,  because  I  was  constantly  inhibiting  the 
tendency  to  test  what  I  had  been  trying  to  learn." 

SATISFYINGNESS   AND   ANNOYINGNESS    IN    READING   AND    RECITATION 

According  to  the  introspections  of  many  adult  subjects  and  the 
reports  of  many  school  children,  one  conspicuous  difference  between 
reading  and  recitation  lies  in  the  greater  satisfyingness  of  the  latter. 
That  the  matter  of  satisfyingness  and  annoyingness  of  mental 
work  is  important  has  been  emphasized  by  Meumann.12  "The  emo- 
tional condition  in  which  we  find  ourselves  during  the  performance 

11  Op.  cit.,  p.  257. 

12  The  Psychology  of  Learning,  p.  281. 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN  MEMORIZING  85 

of  a  mental  task  is  of  profound  importance  for  the  accomplishment 
of  the  task.  In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  an  emotion  of  pleasant- 
ness facilitates  the  function  of  memory,  and  that  unpleasantness 
has  a  very  detrimental  effect  upon  memory."  Thorndike  is  more 
cautious:13  "No  one  probably  doubts  that  interest  in  the  exercise 
of  a  function  favors  improvement  at  it,"  and  "such  statements 
appeal  to  our  common  sense  as  probably  true,  though  they  have 
not  been  fully  verified." 

It  shall  be  our  purpose,  first,  to  inquire  as  to  what  differences 
appear  between  recitation  and  reading  as  producers  of  satisfying- 
ness  and  annoyingness,  and  then  to  consider  briefly  in  what  way  or 
by  means  of  what  minor  functions  these  effects  are  brought  about. 

That  there  is  greater  satisfyingness  in  studying  by  the  recitation 
method  is  indicated  by  the  witness  of  nearly  every  subject,  child  or 
adult.  At  the  close  of  the  experiments  with  the  school  children 
they  were  asked  to  state  what  method  of  learning  they  liked  best. 
For  ease  of  selection  the  cases  considered  were  three :  one  in  which 
they  read  all  the  time,  one  in  which  they  read  about  half  of  the 
time,  and  another  in  which  they  recited  nearly  all  the  time.  The 
following  table  gives  the  distribution  of  opinion. 

With  nonsense  material 


All  reading 

Half  and  half 

Mostly  recitation 

Grade  eight 
Grade  six 

3 

2 

2 
IO 

29 

27 

Sense  material 


Grade  eight 
Grade  six 

4 

2 

17 

10 

20 

28 

It  is  clear  that  the  children  strongly  preferred  the  methods  in 
which  recitation  was  included. 

The  reasons  for  their  preferences  are  varied  and  not  very  specific. 
Such  statements  as,  "It  isn't  such  hard  work,"  "I  learn  better  that 
way,"  were  common.  Some  explained  their  preferences  as  follows: 
"I  knew  I  wras  learning  them  when  I  recited";  "I  get  so  tired  when 
I  read" ;  "When  I  recite,  it's  fun  to  see  if  I  can  say  more  every  time 
than  I  ever  did  before." 

The  introspective  accounts  of  adults  are  even  more  emphatic. 
Among  the  subjects  listed  in  Table  XXXIII,  fourteen  reported  that 

11  Educational  Psychology,  vol.  II,  p.  219. 


86  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

Method  Three  (two  minutes  reading  and  eight  minutes  recitation) 
was  most  satisfying,  one  that  Method  Two  (half  and  half)  was 
most  natural  and  satisfying,  and  all  reported  that  Method  One  (all 
reading)  was  least  so.  In  fact,  most  of  them  report  that  the  last 
four  or  five  minutes  in  the  reading  test  were  positively  'annoying', 
'monotonous',  'tiresome',  'very  fatiguing',  etc.  Subject  Hn 
declared:  "Without  a  doubt,  trying  to  learn  a  series  of  nonsense 
syllables  in  this  way  is  the  most  monotonous  work  I  have  ever  done. 
The  syllables  came  to  have  absolutely  no  connection  or  association, 
and  the  typewritten  letters  became,  after  four  or  five  minutes,  so 
many  stupid  hieroglyphics." 

Many  of  the  actual  ways  through  which  reading  becomes  annoy- 
ing and  recitation  satisfying  have  already  been  indicated,  and  they 
will  receive  but  brief  mention  here.  a.  There  is  satisfaction  in 
the  realization  that  progress  is  actually  being  made.  We  have  seen 
earlier  that  this  is  the  case  during  recitation.  Conversely,  it  is 
annoying  to  be  uncertain  of  one's  progress  in  the  learning,  b.  Reci- 
tation is  satisfying  because  it  offers  the  learner  more  freedom 
to  employ  such  aids,  and  work  with  such  methods,  as  he  may 
desire.  Reading  becomes  annoying  because  it  hinders  or  prohibits 
the  exercise  of  many  of  the  desired  functions,  c.  The  facts  of  a 
and  b  taken  together  explain  other  sources  of  satisfyingness  in  reci- 
tation. For  example,  it  is  satisfying,  as  Katzaroff  pointed  out,  to 
attack  portions  of  the  lesson  that  offer  special  difficulties — difficul- 
ties that  are  often  not  realized  until  one  begins  to  recite.  Again, 
the  opportunity  that  recitation  affords  the  learner  to  ease  off  on 
familiar  portions,  and  strike  hard  at  difficult  portions,  seems  to  be 
a  good  remedy  for  boredom  and  fatigue,  d.  Annoyingness  attends 
the  constant  effort  exerted  by  many  in  resisting  the  natural 
tendency  to  recite  during  the  reading  series. 

IS   THERE    GREATER   ACTIVITY   IN    RECITATION   THAN   IN   READING? 

The  early  investigators  on  this  subject  gave  great  emphasis  to 
the  conclusion  that  recitation,  as  compared  to  learning  by  reading, 
produced  a  greater  activity  on  part  of  the  learner,  and  to  this  greater 
expenditure  of  energy  was  attributed  in  large  measure  the  better 
results  obtained.  For  example  Katzaroff  says:14  "In  the  readings, 
the  subject  is  passive,  calm,  indifferent;  in  recitation  he  is  active." 

The  introspections  and  observations  from  the  present  work  do 
not  lead  to  exactly  this  conclusion.  The  distinction  seems  to  be 
one  of  kind  rather  than  one  of  quantity.  It  appears  that  recitation 
does  not  always,  in  fact,  does  not  generally  result  in  greater  activity, 
effort,  or  expenditure  of  energy  on  part  of  the  learner,  but  the  indica- 

14  Op.  cit.,  p.  257. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  87 

tions  are  that  the  energy  is  expended  in  a  different  way.  Certainly 
the  conscientious  learner  by  the  reading  method  is  not  'calm  and 
indifferent'.  An  apparent,  but  certainly  not  a  real  lack  of  activity 
is  indicated  by  the  already  mentioned  fact  that  many  of  the  motor 
functions  such  as  articulation,  accentuation,  the  use  of  rhythm,  etc., 
are  much  less  prominent  in  reading.  In  the  next  section,  however, 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  subjects  declare  that  every  internal  symp- 
tom indicates  that  reading  is  more  consuming  of  energy  than  reci- 
tation. 

FATIGUE   EFFECTS    OF    READING   AND    RECITATION 

Other  things  being  equal,  we  should  expect,  were  it  true  that 
recitation  results  in  greater  activity  and  expenditure  of  energy  than 
reading,  that  it  would  also  be  more  fatiguing.  Unfortunately,  in 
this  study,  we  have  no  indisputable  measure  of  fatigue,  but  it  never- 
theless appears,  in  so  far  as  one  is  able  by  a  subjective  judgment  to 
estimate  fatigue,  that  recitation  is  much  less  fatiguing.  The  findings 
reported  in  the  section  on  the  satisfyingness  and  annoyingness 
of  the  two  methods  bear  strongly  on  this  point.  In  so  far  as  feelings 
of  fatigue,  boredom,  monotony,  and  the  like  are  indices  of  real 
fatigue,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  recitation  is  less  fatiguing  than 
learning  by  reading.  Whether  or  not  they  are  measures  of  real 
fatigue,  they  are  at  least  very  important  from  the  point  of  view  of 
work  in  the  school-room.  In  the  face  of  such  statements  as  those 
following,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  recitation  is  to  be  preferred 
to  learning  by  reading  in  this  respect.  Subject  Hn:  " Reading  is 
the  most  monotonous  work  I  have  ever  done."  Subject  Dn: 
"Reading  is  most  fatiguing  because  there  is  no  variation."  Subject 
Fx:  "Reading  most  fatiguing — monotonous — took  all  my  energy 
to  keep  up  interest."  Subject  Sn:  "This  method  very  tiresome — 
effort  seemed  to  be  fruitless."  Subject  Mk:  "Very  tiresome  and 
disagreeable."  On  the  other  hand,  learning  by  recitation  may,  as 
Subject  Py  said,  "be  almost  a  pleasure,"  or,  as  Subject  Mk  states, 
"much  more  satisfying,"  or,  as  Subject  Rs  says,  "not  so  bad  as 
reading,  that's  certain." 

Subjects  also  report  that  the  after-effects  of  learning  by  reading 
are  greater  than  learning  by  recitation.     Subject  Bn  reports:    "I 
couldn't  apply  myself  to  work  for  an  hour  after  the  experiment.' 
Subject  T:   "I  felt  tired  all  the  rest  of  the  afternoon." 

From  a  practical  point  of  view,  it  should  also  be  considered  that 
the  fatigue,  based  on  the  amount  learned,  rather  than  the  time 
spent,  would  be  relatively  very  much  greater  in  the  case  of  learning 
by  reading.  The  subjects  report  that  they  are  very  much  less 
fatigued  by  ten  minutes  of  study  by  recitation  than  by  ten  minutes 


88  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

study  by  reading,  yet  they  have  learned  twice  as  much.  If  the  study 
by  reading  were  continued  until  the  amount  learned  was  equal  to 
that  learned  by  the  recitation  method,  the  fatiguing  effects  of  the 
former  would  doubtless  be  still  more  marked. 

SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS   AS   TO   THE   NATURE   OF   READING 
AND   RECITATION   AS   FUNCTIONS   IN   THE   LEARNING   PROCESS 

Our  analysis  of  learning  has  shown  the  memorization  of  any 
material,  especially  of  nonsense  material,  to  be  a  complex  process 
involving  the  formation  of  a  host  of  bonds.  It  has  appeared,  more- 
over, that  many,  in  fact,  most  of  these  bonds  can  be  properly  formed 
only  by  means  of  recitation.  Our  subjects  have  reported  that  it 
was  'difficult',  'unnatural',  'annoying',  'fatiguing',  or  'impos- 
sible* to  establish  most  of  the  essential  bonds  during  reading. 
Efforts  to  learn  the  material  by  rote,  to  memorize  it  mechanically 
or  by  means  of  'visual  imprinting'  during  a  series  of  readings 
proved  to  be  futile.  Memorization  was  possible  only  by  means  of 
establishing  bonds  between  items  and  their  pronunciation,  sound, 
or  look :  between  items  and  accents,  pauses,  or  elements  of  a  rhythm ; 
between  items  and  their  position  in  a  series;  between  an  item  and 
other  items  which  it  may  be  considered  a  part  of,  similar  to,  or 
somehow  related  to  and  the  like,  as  well  as  additional  bonds  between 
characteristics  of  successive  groups  of  items.  We  have  found  that 
it  is  to  the  formation  of  just  these  bonds  that  recitation  leads,  and 
that  it  is  just  these  functions  that  it  is  difficult  or  impossible  to 
exercise  adequately  during  reading  in  its  pure  form.  Consequently 
it  seems  to  be  a  justifiable  conclusion  that  complete  learning  is 
possible  only  by  means  of  some  form  of  recitation.  Pure  reading 
alone  will  scarcely  enable  one  to  completely  learn  a  lesson  which 
exceeds  the  memory  span  by  any  considerable  length,  yet  it  serves 
an  important  function  in  the  learning  process  as  we  have  seen. 

The  considerations  of  the  present  chapter  have  shown  that  read- 
ing and  recitation  are  very  broad  functions  made  up  of  many  minor 
ones.  Economical  learning  consists  not  only  in  selecting  and  exer- 
cising those  more  minute  functions  which  are  essential  and  elimi- 
nating those  that  are  valueless,  but  also  in  exercising  them  in 
proper  sequence  and  each  for  an  optimum  time.  It  will  be  neces- 
sary here  to  review  but  briefly  some  of  the  essential  functions, 
indicating  to  which  of  the  two  broader  functions  they  belong  and 
the  order  in  which  they  are  customarily  exercised. 

The  first  stage  of  the  learning  consists,  as  we  have  seen,  in  looking 
over  the  whole  material  with  the  purpose  of  obtaining  an  idea  of 
its  general  make-up,  noting  the  individual  items  in  the  group, 
getting  the  pronunciation  or  look  or  sound  of  the  terms  to  some 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  89 

degree,  and  noting  outstanding  'aids'  which  may  be  employed  in 
breaking  up  the  material  to  further  the  learning.  Much  may  be 
done  in  this  stage  to  determine  upon  a  method  of  attack.  The 
length  of  the  material,  its  apparent  difficulty,  its  peculiarities,  the 
possibilities  for  rhythmical  division,  and  its  ready-made  associations 
are  considered.  The  material  may  be  thus  perused  for  several  times 
until  the  reader  feels  'familiar'  with  it  and  a  method  of  procedure 
is  tentatively  adopted.  This  stage  is  the  reading  stage,  includ- 
ing what  Miiller  has  termed  the  stages  of  'collective'  and  'suc- 
cessive apprehension'.  That  the  functions  of  reading  are 
essential  and  satisfying  here  has  been  indicated  by  all  intro- 
spective data. 

The  optimum  duration  of  this  stage  depends  upon  many  factors, 
such  as  the  length  and  difficulty  of  the  material,  the  age,  training 
and  capacity  of  the  learner,  and  the  like.  These  considerations  will 
be  taken  up  on  a  later  page. 

Following  this  stage,  new  functions  may  be  introduced  and  the 
original  functions  may  be  employed  in  a  somewhat  different  manner. 
This  is  the  stage  of  recitation.  It  consists  essentially  in  the  final 
selection  of  the  bonds  requisite  to  recall  and  the  exercise  of  these 
bonds  until  they  are  firmly  established.  What  these  bonds  are,  it 
was  the  purpose  of  the  preceding  sections  of  this  chapter  to  point 
out.  Thus  it  appears  that  memorizing  is  in  no  essential  way  differ- 
ent from  any  other  form  of  learning.  The  bonds  selected  are 
exercised,  those  found  to  be  unfit  are  eliminated,  and  new  bonds 
are  added  as  the  case  demands,  the  period  of  practice  being  con- 
tinued until,  once  initiated,  the  series  of  desired  responses  runs  off 
in  the  proper  order. 

Like  other  processes  of  learning  memorizing  may  be  explained  in 
physiological  terms.  An  adequate  explanation  of  this  sort  would 
make  the  difference  between  the  functions  of  reading  and  recitation 
more  intelligible.  The  learning  of  a  series  of  nonsense  syllables, 
like  the  formation  of  any  habit,  involves  two  things:  a  sensori- 
motor  response  or  the  formation  of  a  bond  between  a  situation  and 
a  particular  response,  and  a  sequential  connection  between  the 
various  situation-response  bonds  in  serial  order.15  The  following 
diagrams  illustrate  in  a  very  rough  way,  what  physiological  actions 
and  changes  are  involved  in  the  learning  of  a  series  of  nonsense 
syllables  or  any  other  material. 

15  A  standard  treatise  in  English  upon  the  physiological  aspects  of  learning  is  Ladd  and 
Woodworth,  Physiological  Psychology,  New  York,  1911.  For  an  abbreviated  but  excellent  account, 
see  also  Thorndike,  E.  L.,  Educational  Psychology,  New  York  1913,  vol.  i,  chapter  XIV.  The 
illustrations  used  in  the  present  article  are  similar  in  some  respects  to  those  employed  by  Bair  to 
explain  the  development  in  skill  in  typewriting.  Compare  'The  Practice  Curve',  Psychological 
Review  Monographs  1902,  No.  19,  pp.  1-70. 


90  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

In  Figures  4,  5,  and  6,  S,  S  l,  S  2, — represent  the  stimuli,  that  is, 
the  sight  of  the  syllables,  occurring  in  serial  order  as  they  would  in 
reading.  These  stimuli  are  conducted  to  the  sensory  centers  A,  A1, 
A2, — ,  which  discharge  respectively  into  the  higher  centers  B,  B  1, 
B  2  — ,  and  these  cells  in  turn  discharge  into  M,  M  1,  M  2  — ,  the 
effectors  which  produce  the  motor  responses  of  writing  or  speaking 
the  syllables. 

Let  us  consider  a  case  of  pure  reading;  pure  in  the  sense  of  being 
entirely  devoid  of  all  elements  of  recall,  waiving  for  the  moment 


Fig.  4 — 'Pure'  reading.  Fig.  5 — Reading  with  formation 

of  associations. 


Fig.  6 — Recitation. 

the  question  of  whether  such  reading  actually  exists.  Pure  reading 
would  consist  in  the  exercise  of  bonds  S  A  B  M,  S  WB  1M  1,  etc., 
as  distinct  units.  The  more  often  these  bonds  are  exercised,  the 
more  definite  becomes  the  connections  and  the  more  automatic 
the  response.  But  it  is  obvious  that  however  firmly  these  bonds 
become  fixed,  they  cannot  of  themselves  make  possible  voluntary 
recall,  since  S,  S  11  S  2,  — ,  (the  sight  of  the  syllables  being  learned) 
is  an  essential  link  in  the  process. 

Figure  6  illustrates  roughly  the  requirements  for  voluntary  re- 
call. In  this  case  the  expression  of  the  syllables  (designated  as 
M,  M1,  M2,  — ,)  are  produced  in  the  absence  of  the  stimuli,  S,  S1, 
S2,  — ,  of  the  visible  words.  What  is  required  here  is  that  bonds 
should  have  been  formed  between  the  various  higher  units.  Con- 
nections between  B  and  B1,  M  and  B1,  or  both,  must  be  established. 
The  result  is  that  once  the  series  is  started,  the  physiological  pro- 


RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN  MEMORIZING  9! 

cesses  which  produce  the  first  syllable  act  as  the  stimuli  for  the  pro- 
duction of  the  processes  which  bring  about  the  response  of  the 
second  syllable  and  so  on. 

Perhaps  few  \vould  doubt  that  this  illustration  would  account,  in 
a  very  rough  way,  for  the  process  of  recall,  but  many  might  be 
unwilling  to  admit  that  Figure  4  is  a  correct  representation  of  the 
processes  involved  in  reading.  The  doctrine  of  association  by  con- 
tiguity might  insist  that  the  mere  repetition  of  the  syllables  one 
after  another  would  result  in  the  establishment  of  bonds  between 
them.  Bair,16  consequent  to  his  study  of  the  development  of  skill 
in  typewriting,  concluded,  although  he  really  gave  very  little  weight 
to  it,  that  "connections  are  formed  between  cells  that  for  a  number 
of  times  have  been  stimulated  or  discharged — in  succession." 
Woodworth  has  pointed  out  the  inadequacy  of  this  doctrine.  To 
quote:17  "contiguity  is  a  necessary  condition  of  association.  But 
is  it  a  sufficient  condition?  There  is  little  in  the  experimental  work 
on  memory  to  indicate  that  it  is  sufficient,  and  much  to  indicate 
that  it  is  not  usually  depended  on  to  accomplish  results.  The 
things  to  be  connected  must  be  together,  in  order  to  arouse  the 
reaction  connecting  them;  but,  unless  they  arouse  some  such 
reaction,  they  do  not  become  connected,  except  it  be  very  weakly." 
Professor  Woodworth  has  shown  some  convincing  experimental 
evidence18  in  support  of  his  view  and  doubtless  much  more  could 
be  discovered  by  search  through  studies  already  in  print,19  but 
space  will  not  permit  us  to  go  into  the  matter  here. 

In  attempting  to  learn  by  reading,  the  subject  does  not  rely 
entirely  upon  mere  repetition  of  the  syllables — upon  the  alleged 
efficacy  of  contiguity — alone,  but  in  most  cases,  tries  to  form  the 
serial  associations  upon  which  he  must  rely  to  recall  the  series 
when  the  time  comes.  Why  are  these  bonds  not  definitely  formed? 
The  reason  is  that  the  presence  of  the  printed  words  (5,  S1,  S2,  etc.) 
makes  it  so  unessential,  during  reading,  to  connect  B  with  Bl,  or 
M  with  Bl,  that  the  learner's  purpose  to  strengthen  these  bonds  is 
defeated.  Since,  according  to  prescription,  the  learner  must, 

uOp.  cit,,  p.  51. 

17  'A    Revision   of   Imageless   Thought',    Psychological  Review,  1915,  22,  pp.  1-27,  especially 
pp. 16-22. 

18  It  may  be  well  to  give  the  following  sample  test,  in  the  words  of  the  author.    "I  read  a  list 
of  twenty  pairs  of  unrelated  words  to  a  group  of  sixteen  subjects,  instructing  them  beforehand  to 
learn  the  pairs  so  as  to  be  able  to  respond  with  the  second  of  each  pair  when  the  first  should  be  given 
as  a  stimulus.     But,  after  reading  the  list  three  times,  I  told  them  that  they  should,  if  possible, 
give  also  the  first  word  of  the  following  pair  on  getting  the  second  word  of  the  preceding  pair  as  a 
stimulus. — The  results  were  most  definite:  the  second  members  of  the  pairs  were  correctly  recalled 
in  seventy-four  per  cent,  of  all  cases,  but  the  first  members  were  recalled  in  only  seven  per  cent, 
of  the  cases."    'A  Revision  of  Imageless  Thought'.    Ibid.,  p.  18. 

19  For  example,  see  Hollingworth,  H.  L.  'Characteristic  Differences  between  Recall  and  Recog- 
nition', American  Journal  Psychology,  1913,  24,  pp.  532-544.     Also  'The  Influence  of  Caffein  on 
Efficiency',  Archives  of  Psychology,  1912,  No.  22,  p.  17. 


92  RECITATION  AS  A   FACTOR   IN  MEMORIZING 

on  completing  the  series  SAB  M,  then  read  S1,  the  connections 
S1  A1  Bl  Ml  being  by  previous  practice  better  established,  are 
thrown  into  action  before  the  incipient  bonds  B-B1,  M-Bl\  are 
awakened.  The  response  follows  directly  upon  the  stimulus  pro- 
voked by  seeing  the  word. 

How  is  it  possible,  then,  as  shown  by  our  quantitative  results 
given  earlier,  that  some  memorization  does  result  from  reading? 
In  all  probability  pure  reading  is  a  fiction;  recall,  to  some  degree, 
being  always  present.  Nearly  all  subjects  were  able,  introspectively, 
to  discern  this  fact.  Figure  5  shows,  roughly,  the  physiology  of 
this  situation.  The  dotted  lines  S-A,  S1-A11  etc.,  indicate  that 
these  bonds  between  the  sight  of  the  word  and  its  expression  are 
more  feebly  exercised;  are  less  depended  upon  than  is  the  case  in 
Figure  4,  which  illustrates  the  hypothetical  pure  reading.  The 
manner  in  which  the  items  (S1,  etc.)  are  required  to  play  a  minor 
role  are  various.  Sometimes  the  subject  pauses  between  the 
series,  S  A  B  M  and  S1  A*  Bl  M1,  etc.,  thus  permitting  the  bonds 
B-B1,  M-B1,  etc.,  to  be  thrown  into  action  before  S1  is  observed. 
That  is  to  say,  the  subject  anticipates  the  next  word  in  the  series, 
more  or  less,  before  he  reads  it.  Sometimes  the  syllables  are  read 
in  a  hazy,  inattentive  way,  in  which  case  the  subject  relies  partly 
upon  the  exercise  of  the  serial  bonds  as  well  as  upon  the  objective 
stimulus  of  the  printed  word.  In  these  and  other  ways,  actual 
reading  departs  from  pure  reading  and  in  consequence  leads  more 
effectively  to  memorization.  In  short,  the  actual  reading  which 
the  subject  practices  is  a  sort  of  hybrid  between  the  hypothetical 
pure  reading  and  recitation. 

A  more  accurate  picture  of  the  anatomical  substrata  of  memoriz- 
ing would  undoubtedly  be  much  more  complex  than  our  simple  dia- 
grams. As  we  have  seen,  consciousness  of  the  meaning  and  form 
of  the  material  is  a  prominent  factor  in  learning.  Consequently, 
the  diagram  should  contain  at  least  a  symbolic  representation  of 
the  centers  upon  which,  presumably,  such  consciousness  depends. 
Thus,  in  Figure  7,  P,  a  'psychic'  center  may  be  added,  in  which 
elaborations  of  the  sensory  data  take  place.20  Probably  in  learning 
a  passage,  as  well  as  during  the  recall  for  some  time,  P  is  called  into 
activity,  discharging  into  B.  As  practice  continues,  in  all  likeli- 
hood, pathway  S  A  B  M  becomes  relatively  more  and  more  per- 
meable, until  finally  conduction  through  A  P  B  ceases  almost 
entirely — the  process  becomes  practically  unattended  by  conscious- 
ness of  meaning.  To  illustrate  this  condition  for  reading  (illus- 

20  For  an  account  of  such  distribution  of  functions,  see  Ladd  and  Woodworth,  Physiological 
Psychology,  chapters  IX  and  X.  The  'association'  or  'psychic'  areas  are  given  special  treatment 
on  pp. 251-263. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 


93 


trated  by  Figure  7)  we  may  repeat  the  statement  of  one  of  our 
subjects:  "The  typewritten  letters  became,  after  four  or  five  min- 
utes, so  many  stupid  hieroglyphics." 

In  recitation  also,  the  'psychic'  center  P  is  involved.  Figure  8 
is  merely  a  suggestion  of  the  possible  connections  of  this  center 
with  others.  P  may  have  connections  with  Bl,  as  well  as  with  P1, 
which  in  turn,  is  connected  with  B1,  through  which  the  discharge 
into  the  organ  of  expression  takes  place.  If  now  we  consider  that 
each  of  these  possible  connections  indicated  by  a  straight  line  in 
the  figure  is  a  representation  of  hundreds,  perhaps  thousands  of 
different  neurones  that  may  be  employed,  the  complexity  of  the 


Fig.  7 — Reading  with  awareness 
of  meaning. 


Fig.  8 — Recitation  with  awareness 
of  meaning. 


neural  substrate  involved  in  learning  is  suggested.  But  recitation 
of  the  series  of  syllables  may  become  short-circuited  to  a  nearly 
mechanical  activity,  such  that  once  initiated,  the  series  of  responses 
occurs  automatically  while  attention  is  occupied  with  other  matters. 
This  may  be  typified  by  considering  that  the  connections  through 
P  and  P1,  etc.,  and  perhaps  even  the  connections  B-B1,  etc.,  drop 
out,  so  that  the  connection  of  M  with  JB1,  which  leads  directly  to 
M1,  is  so  close  that  once  the  series  of  responses  is  started,  each 
follows  its  predecessor  with  mechanical  precision. 

Recitation,  in  brief,  differs  from  reading  physiologically  by  the 
fact  that  it  selects  and  exercises  the  bonds  upon  which  the  estab- 
lished habit  'depends,  while  reading  calls  into  action  some  bonds 
that  are  not  strictly  needed  for  recall,  omits  some  that  are  requisite, 
and  does  not  so  well  exercise  the  remaining  few,  needed  for  recall. 
Recitation  is  for  memorizing  what  practice  is  for  other  habits.21 
The  physiological  basis  is  the  same. 


21  Such  a  physiological  explanation,  for  example,  has  been  worked  out  in  detail  by  J.  H.  Bair 
for  typewriting.  See  'The  Practice  Curve',  Psychological  Review  Monographs,  1902,  No.  19, 
pp.  1-70. 


94  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

Some  of  the  differences  between  reading  and  recitation,  which 
appeared  from  the  introspective  analysis  of  the  two  functions,  may 
appear  with  more  clarity  when  considered  from  the  physiological 
side.  For  example,  many  subjects  reported  that  the  associative 
aids  adopted  during  recitation  were  more  constantly  employed  than 
those  adopted  during  reading.  Recitation  results  in  the  continued 
exercise  of  particular  bonds,  as  we  have  seen,  and  of  course  each 
repetition  strengthens  those  bonds,  with  the  result  that  the  nervous 
impulse  once  initiated  flows  along  the  most  frequently  traversed 
pathway.  In  reading,  none  of  the  serial  bonds  receives  adequate 
exercise,  with  the  result  that  none  has  a  great  advantage  over  any 
other,  and  now  one,  now  another  pathway  may  be  traversed. 

Annoyingness  and  fatigue  in  the  case  of  prolonged  reading  may 
be  considered  as  largely  due  to  a  check  placed  in  the  way  of  the 
exercise  of  the  bonds  desired.  "When  any  conduction  unit  is  in 
readiness  to  conduct,  for  it  to  do  so  is  satisfying.  When  any  con- 
duction unit  is  not  ready  to  conduct,  for  it  to  do  so  is  annoying. 
When  any  conduction  unit  is  in  readiness  to  conduct,  for  it  not 
to  do  so  is  annoying."22  After  the  preliminary  exercise  of  the 
conduction  units  S  A  B  M,  further  exercise  of  that  bond  becomes 
annoying;  the  serial  bonds  are  then  ready  to  conduct.  For  them 
to  do  so,  under  the  conditions  specified  in  reading,  is  practically 
impossible,  because  the  stimuli  5,  S1,  52,  etc.,  by  virtue  of  their 
firmer  establishment,  cause  the  conduction  to  take  the  habitual 
course,  S  A  B  M,  etc. 

Space  will  not  permit  further  illustrations  of  this  sort.  By  way 
of  summary  of  this  section,  it  is  only  necessary  to  repeat  that  read- 
ing and  recitation  are  relatively  distinct  yet  essential  functions  of 
the  learning  process.  Each  has  its  proper  place,  and  as  we  have  seen, 
introducing  recitation  too  early  or  withholding  it  too  long  retards 
learning.  The  important  matter  is  to  determine  the  optimum  point 
at  which  to  introduce  it,  a  matter  which  will  receive  consideration 
in  the  following  section. 

THE   OPTIMUM   TIME   AT   WHICH   TO   INTRODUCE    RECITATION 

The  quantitative  results  presented  in  Chapter  IV  indicated  that 
the  optimum  time  at  which  to  introduce  recitation  varied  somewhat 
according  to  the  age  and  training  of  the  different  groups  of  school 
children,  and  the  data  obtained  from  adults  pointed  to  differences 
among  individuals  of  approximately  the  same  age  and  training.  It 
is  obvious  that  the  determination  of  the  optimum  time  at  which  to 
introduce  recitation  is  a  most  important  matter  for  purposes  of 
economizing  time  and  energy  in  learning.  That  the  quantitative 

12  Thorndike,  E.  L.,  Educational  Psychology,  vol.  II,  pp.  1-2. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  95 

determination  of  the  best  combinations  of  reading  and  recitation 
made  in  the  present  study  apply  only  to  the  particular  conditions 
here  employed,  has  already  been  pointed  out.  The  optimum  time 
for  the  beginning  of  recitation  will  doubtless  vary  not  only  according 
to  the  age,  training,  and  capacity  of  the  learner  but  also  according 
to  the  kind  of  material,  the  length  of  the  lesson,  and  the  purpose  in 
view,  i.  e\,  whether  the  lesson  is  to  be  learned  verbatim,  whether  the 
substance  without  the  exact  form  is  to  be  reproduced,  or  whether  a 
less  definite  mastery  is  all  that  is  desired.  Consequently,  a  quanti- 
tatively precise  rule  cannot  be  made. 

The  present  study,  however,  has  produced  some  results  that  are 
suggestive.  In  general,  all  the  evidence,  quantitative,  introspective, 
and  interpretative  seems  to  imply  that  recitation  should  be  intro- 
duced early.  Only  a  very  small  percentage  of  the  total  time  required 
to  learn  should  be  devoted  to  reading.  However,  it  seems  to  be  a 
natural  tendency  of  many  adult  subjects  to  make  too  early  an 
attempt  at  recitation.  Some  of  the  reasons  for  the  disadvantageous 
effect  of  introducing  recitation  may  be  pointed  out.  First,  The 
bonds  between  the  words  and  syllables  and  their  correct  pronuncia- 
tion are  not  sufficiently  well  formed  to  permit  successful  recitation. 
Second,  The  advantageous  effect  of  a  preliminary  determination  of 
a  line  of  attack  is  foregone  in  whole  or  part.  Third,  The  amount 
of  data  that  can  be  recalled  at  so  early  a  moment  is  insufficient. 
The  learner  is  likely  to  waste  time  in  fruitless  endeavor  to  recall 
syllables  that  are  simply  not  as  yet  forthcoming.  Fourth,  Too  much 
time  is  wasted  looking  on  and  off  the  text,  'finding  the  place'  and 
the  like.  Fifth,  Too  frequent  failures  in  attempted  recalls  break 
attention  and  may  develop  an  unpleasant  attitude  on  part  of  the 
subject.  Sixth,  Too  many  erroneous  recalls  may  be  made.  When 
the  learner  has  such  slight  acquaintance  with  the  material  as  a 
whole,  errors  once  made  are  likely  to  be  repeated.  Later  these 
undesirable  bonds  must  be  broken  down  before  the  correct  bonds 
can  be  formed. 

Just  as  introducing  the  recitation  too  early  has  a  deleterious 
effect,  so  does  introducing  it  too  late  retard  learning.  The  abundant 
quantitative  evidence  for  this  has  been  presented  in  Chapter  IV. 

The  optimum  combination  of  the  two  functions  can  be  best 
expressed  in  this  way.  Reading  should  be  continued  until  the 
learner  is  fairly  familiar  with  the  material  as  a  whole  and  with  the 
items  of  which  it  is  composed.  The  learner  should  have  decided 
meanwhile  upon  his  general  method  of  attack.  Enough  of  the 
material  should  be  clearly  in  mind  so  that  the  learner's  first  attempts 
at  recall  will  meet  with  some  success.  Just  how  much  is  enough 
will  depend  largely  upon  the  learner.  As  a  guiding  principle  one 


96  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

may  consider  that  the  first  few  recitations  should  not  result  in  too 
great  a  distortion  of  the  material,  nor  should  it  cause  a  waste  of 
time  in  fruitless  endeavor  to  recall.  The  capacity  of  the  learner  to 
quickly  judge  the  status  of  his  knowledge  is  of  prime  importance; 
he  should  be  able  to  know  at  once  whether  continued  effort  to  recall 
this  particular  syllable  will  end  in  success  or  not,  and  in  the  latter 
case  time  should  not  be  wasted  before  reference  to  the  text  is  made. 
The  early  stages  of  learning  will  thus  employ  both  reading  and  reci- 
tation, the  relative  amount  of  the  former  decreasing  as  the  learning 
progresses.  Economical  learning  would  consist,  in  part,  in  employ- 
ing recitation,  after  it  is  once  introduced,  to  the  full,  coupled  with 
the  capacity  to  speedily  resort  to  reading  where  it  is  essential. 

THE   EFFECTIVENESS   OF   RECITATION   IN  LEARNING  NONSENSE 
MATERIAL  AS   COMPARED   TO   LEARNING   SENSE  MATERIAL 

The  quantitative  results  of  Chapter  IV  seemed  to  indicate  two 
things :  First,  that  the  optimum  time  for  introducing  recitation  was 
considerably  earlier  for  nonsense  than  for  sense  material;  and 
Second,  that  recitation  seemed  to  be  a  more  fruitful  method  of 
study  in  the  case  of  nonsense  material  than  in  the  case  of  sense 
material. 

The  first  result  is  apparent  rather  than  real.  While  it  is  true  that 
recitation  introduced  very  early  produced  richer  returns  for  non- 
sense than  for  sense  material,  this  should  be  considered  in  connec- 
tion with  the  fact  that  the  amount  of  material  forming  the  lesson  in 
the  former  case  is  but  a  small  fraction  of  that  used  in  the  latter.  Yet 
the  amount  of  material  should  be  considered  only  in  connection 
with  the  difficulty  of  the  material.  While  the  nonsense  material 
was  much  less  in  amount,  it  was  very  much  more  difficult  to  learn. 
A  further  consideration  of  this  point  is  unnecessary  since  the  factors 
which  influence  the  introduction  of  recitation,  just  considered,  are 
the  same  in  either  case. 

The  point  with  regard  to  the  value  of  recitation  as  dependent 
upon  the  kind  of  material  is  important  and  demands  further 
consideration. 

The  results  have  shown  clearly  that  equal  amounts  of  recitation 
produce  richer  returns  in  the  case  of  senseless  non-connected  material 
than  when  connected  senseful  material  is  used.  The  reasons  why 
this  should  be  the  case  have  been  given  in  the  previous  sections  of 
this  chapter,  and  it  is  only  necessary  here  to  summarize  the  factors 
upon  which  this  difference  depends. 

In  the  first  place,  it  was  found  that  recitation  was  of  great  service 
in  assisting  the  subject  to  organize  the  material  into  some  sort  of 
compact  and  connected  whole,  such  an  organization  being  essential 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IX   MEMORIZING  97 

to  a  thorough  mastery  of  it.  The  particular  means  of  accomplishing 
this  organization  were:  the  formation  of  bonds  between  the  items 
and  accents,  modulations  of  the  voice,  pauses,  and  elements  of  a 
rhythm ;  the  formation  of  bonds  between  items  and  their  meaning, 
immediate  or  distant;  the  noticing  of  peculiarities  in  the  text  and 
the  formation  of  bonds  between  items  and  their  position  for  the 
purpose  of  breaking  up  the  material  into  groups;  the  noticing  of 
bonds  between  items  and  characteristics  of  the  groups  and  so  on. 
In  short,  recitation  rendered  great  service  in  creating  usable  asso- 
ciations within  the  material  where  there  was  none,  or  in  more 
adequately  noticing  and  exercising  those  that  were  already  present. 
In  nonsense  material  these  bonds  between  items  are  absent,  and  this 
process  of  organization  and  creation  of  associations  is  difficult  and 
essential;  learning  of  such  material  consists  in  accomplishing  just 
this  organization.  In  the  connected  sense  material  such  as  that  used 
in  the  present  experiment,  most  of  these  associations  are  already 
present;  the  material  is  already  organized,  the  items  are  connected 
by  serial  connections  of  meaning,  rhythms,  and  the  like,  by  means 
of  which  the  various  elements  are  firmly  knit  together.  The  func- 
tion of  recitation  for  the  formation  of  these  bonds  is  not  required. 
What  is  needed  is  that  the  ready-formed  associations  be  noticed 
and  exercised,  although,  in  most  cases,  bonds  in  addition  to  those 
found  in  the  material  will  be  required. 

A  second  reason  for  the  better  results  obtained  by  reading  in  the 
case  of  sense  material  is  closely  related  to  the  first  and  lies  in  the 
fact  that  reading  is  less  'pure'  in  studying  sense  material.  As 
was  remarked  earlier,  after  a  certain  number  of  perusals  the  read- 
ing of  either  kind  of  material  is  probably  not  pure  and  becomes 
less  and  less  so  as  the  subject  becomes  more  familiar  with  it.  The 
more  easily  the  material  can  be  grasped,  the  less  pure  the  reading 
becomes,  as  a  rule.  Nonsense  material  is  always  rather  hard  to 
articulate  and  hard  to  work  with  generally,  and  as  a  consequence, 
there  is  less  of  a  tendency  to  depart  from  reading  when  it  is  pre- 
scribed. But  in  the  case  of  connected  sense  material,  the  reader  is 
usually  already  familiar  with  the  words  and  phrases  as  such;  only 
the  combinations  are  new  and  doubtless  not  all  of  them.  The  greater 
fluency  and  greater  familiarity  of  the  material  results  in  combining 
recitation  with  reading;  only  certain  key  words  need  be  noticed, 
the  gaps  being  filled  in  by  recall.  The  learner  can  glance  along  the 
lines,  scarcely  seeing  more  than  an  occasional  word  which  sug- 
gests the  context. 

The  physiological  explanation  that  was  applied  to  reading  and 
recitation  in  general  can  be  equally  well  utilized  to  illustrate  these 
points.  In  recitation  the  connections  between  the  items  (repre- 


98  RECITATION   AS  A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

sented  in  Figures  7  and  8  by  P-P1,  P-B1,  B-B1,  etc.)  are,  in  con- 
siderable degree,  already  given  in  the  material.  In  fact,  the  serial 
associations  between  the  words  of  familiar  phrases  are  already 
fixed  in  one's  nervous  system  through  earlier  practice.  Recitation, 
as  a  factor  making  possible  the  formation  of  many  connections,  is 
consequently  not  needed.  In  other  cases  where  the  connections 
are  less  definitely  formed,  only  a  small  amount  of  practice  is  re- 
quired to  stamp  them  in.  The  result  is  that  in  so  far  as  the  con- 
nections are  ready-formed,  reading  amounts  in  all  essentials  to 
recitation.  The  eye  neglects  many  of  the  words  as  such,  fixating 
only  occasional  points.  Reading  thus  becomes  far  from  pure  and 
approaches  recitation,  in  all  likelihood,  more  and  more  closely  as 
the  learning  advances. 


VI 
CONCLUSIONS  AND  PEDAGOGICAL  IMPLICATIONS 

A  detailed  summary  of  results  will  not  be  attempted  at  this 
point.  Only  a  few  of  the  results  which  are  of  practical  importance 
for  the  work  of  the  school-room  will  be  repeated.  The  reader  who 
wishes  a  more  detailed  account  of  the  findings  may  refer  to  the 
summaries  that  are  to  be  found  at  the  close  of  the  previous  chapters. 

The  compilation  of  quantitative  and  introspective  evidence  has 
shown  that  reading  and  recitation  are  relatively  distinct  functions 
in  the  process  of  learning.  Each  has  its  proper  office  to  perform, 
and  to  restrict  the  learning  entirely  to  one  or  the  other  results  in 
loss  of  time  and  energy.  Reading,  as  the  introductory  function, 
should  be  employed  until  the  learner  is  fairly  well  acquainted  with 
the  material  as  a  whole ;  until  a  method  for  further  attack  has  been 
tentatively  adopted;  and  until  the  first  attempt  at  recall  will 
meet  with  some  success  without  too  great  a  distortion  of  the  ma- 
terial. The  optimum  point  for  introducing  it,  thus,  occurs  early  in 
the  process,  but  to  introduce  it  too  early,  as  well  as  to  introduce  it 
too  late,  will  have  a  detrimental  effect.  In  determining  the  exact 
moment  at  which  recitation  can  best  be  introduced,  one  must  take 
into  account  the  length  of  the  lesson,  the  difficulty  of  the  material, 
the  kind  of  learning  that  is  desired,  the  age,  training,  and  general 
capacity  of  the  learner. 

The  function  of  recitation,  as  we  have  seen,  is  similar  to  that  of 
practice  in  any  form  of  sensori-motor  learning.  Memorization 
consists  in  selecting  certain  essential  bonds,  eliminating  the  unfit, 
and  exercising  the  former  until  the  connections  are  so  well  formed 
that  once  initiated,  the  series  of  responses  will  occur  in  proper 
sequence.  The  laws  of  use  and  disuse  apply  here  as  in  other  forms 
of  learning;  the  physiological  basis  is  the  same. 

Since  recitation  is  equivalent  to  practice  in  other  forms  of  learn- 
ing, we  should  expect  as  a  matter  of  course  that  any  restriction 
upon  its  employment  during  the  process  of  memorization  should 
result  in  retarding  improvement.  Our  experiments  upon  this  point 
have  shown  that  this  is  the  case.  This  was  true  for  all  subjects, 
except  children  so  young  as  to  be  unable  to  meet  the  requirements 
of  the  test,  and  for  all  materials  employed,  although,  as  might 
reasonably  be  expected,  minor  differences  are  to  be  found.  In 
general,  a  method  in  which  recitation  is  introduced  at  the  optimum 


100  RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING 

time,  in  comparison  with  a  method  in  which  the  learner  is  entirely 
restricted  to  reading,  enables  the  learner  to  reproduce  immediately 
after  a  short  period  of  study  approximately  twice  as  much  material. 
The  advantage  of  recitation  as  one  should  expect,  is  much  more 
pronounced  in  delayed  recall.  After  an  interval  of  three  or  four 
hours,  recitation  makes  possible  the  recall  of  four  times  as  much 
material  as  does  reading.  This  is  to  be  expected,  since  recitation  is 
understood  as  a  process  of  adequate  practice,  while  reading,  whose 
function  is  introductory,  restricts  or  inhibits  the  exercise  of  the 
bonds  upon  whose  strength  recall  depends.  In  reading,  while 
many  of  the  bonds  may  be  well  enough  established  for  immediate 
use,  the  neural  connections  rapidly  disappear  with  disuse. 

As  the  nature  of  reading  and  recitation  now  appears,  the  ques- 
tion is  not  so  much — How  is  it  that  reading  produces  such  poor 
results? — but  rather — How  is  it  that  reading  permits  of  any  memo- 
rization at  all?  The  evidence  that  has  been  gathered  makes  it 
doubtful  whether  pure  reading  would  result  in  memorization.  But 
there  is  little  doubt  that  pure  reading  is  a  fiction ;  more  or  less  recita- 
tion is  always  present  in  any  prolonged  effort  to  learn. 

The  fact  that  reading  is  seldom  if  ever  pure  can  be  most  clearly 
illustrated  in  the  case  of  learning  sense  material,  and  this  fact  helps 
us  at  the  same  time  to  understand  why  reading  as  a  method  of 
learning  is  more  fruitful  when  applied  to  such  material  than  when 
employed  with  non-connected  senseless  material.  Nearly  all  of 
the  subjects  admitted  that  their  learning,  especially  of  sense  mate- 
rial, was  not  limited  to  pure  reading.  The  eye  moved  along  the 
line  actually  seeing  only  occasional  words.  Other  words,  in  fact 
whole  phrases,  were  filled  in  by  recall.  The  text  served  only  to 
suggest  groups  of  words  or  ideas  which  were  for  the  most  part  filled 
in  by  the  learner.  In  so  far  as  this  subjective  reproduction  of  the 
material  was  carried  on,  to  just  that  extent  the  learner  was  reciting 
rather  than  reading,  and  without  doubt  this  sort  of  recall  was  at 
all  times  considerable,  becoming  more  and  more  so  as  the  learning 
progressed.  Consequently,  it  appears  that  the  memorization  of 
the  material,  technically  speaking,  must,  after  all,  be  attributed  to 
recitation. 

The  findings  of  Chapter  IV  were  to  the  effect  that  reading 
was  much  more  productive  when  the  material  was  senseful  and  con- 
nected than  when  senseless  and  non-connected.  The  previous  para- 
graph explains  in  part  why  this  should  be  so.  Reading  of  senseful 
connected  material  is  far  from  pure,  while  with  senseless  material, 
on  account  of  its  less  fluency  and  lack  of  senseful  serial  associations, 
the  learner  finds  it  less  unnatural  to  actually  see  and  read  each  item. 
No  associations  are  present  in  the  material  which  enable  the  learner 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEM0'RKIN# ; ' ; '  - ;; ';  ;,!££ 

to  fill  in  the  gaps  when  only  occasional  syllables  are  read.  The 
bonds  between  items  must  be  built  up  by  the  learner  himself,  and 
it  is  in  this  process  that  recitation  is  of  the  greatest  value.  These 
two  factors  together,  namely,  that  the  bonds  between  items  in 
nonsense  material  must  be  worked  in  by  the  learner  and  that 
reading  is  much  more  pure  with  this  material,  explain  the  relatively 
greater  advantage  which  recitation  brings  about  with  nonsense  as 
compared  to  senseful  material. 

In  addition  to  the  fact  that  recitation  as  compared  with  reading 
enables  the  learner  to  form  the  requisite  bonds  more  quickly  and 
more  permanently,  the  results  of  Chapter  V  have  indicated  other 
advantages  of  recitation  as  a  form  of  learning.  It  was  found  that 
recitation  leads  to  greater  certainty  of  one's  knowledge.  It  enables 
the  learner  not  only  to  know  but  to  be  aware  of  how  well  he  knows. 
Fewer  blunders  and  erroneous  recalls  are  made.  The  material  is 
better  organized;  it  is  in  more  usable  form.  The  meaning  of  the 
material  is  better  obtained,  and  the  relations  among  parts  become 
more  clear.  In  addition  to  this,  as  Katzaroff  found  (see  page  5), 
material  learned  by  means  of  recitation  can  be  more  promptly 
recalled ;  the  recitation  time  is  less. 

From  every  point  of  view  the  superiority  of  recitation  over 
reading,  beyond  the  few  perusals  required  to  furnish  the  initial 
grasp  of  the  material,  is  very  clear.  It  holds  for  all  materials  and 
for  practically  all  subjects.  Consequently,  the  applications  of  the 
results  to  pedagogy  are  direct  and  manifestly  important. 

For  the  improvement  of  methods  of  study  among  school  chil- 
dren, it  is  first  of  all  necessary  that  the  teacher  should  be  aware  of 
the  value  of  recall  in  learning  and  that  she  should  endeavor  to 
impart  this  information  in  a  practicable  way  to  the  pupils.  That 
the  pupils  cannot  be  depended  upon  to  discover  economical  methods 
of  studying  by  themselves  has  often  been  discovered  by  inquiry. 
Miss  M.  J.  Baldwin,1  for  example,  found  for  grammar  and  high 
school  pupils  "that  eighty- two  per  cent,  studied  words  rather  than 
thoughts,  that  they  study  in  a  mechanical  sort  of  way  which  enables 
them  to  say  that  they  have  studied  the  lesson  and  spent  the  re- 
quired time.  They  read  the  words  over  and  over  and  doubtless 
get  more  confused  the  more  they  read." 

It  is  perhaps  not  sufficient,  however,  that  the  pupils  should  be 
merely  aware  of  the  fact  that  attempted  recitation  is  an  essential 
process  in  learning.  The  teacher  must  devise  means  by  which  the 
pupils  may  be  induced  to  study  by  trying  to  recall  the  material 
rather  than  by  merely  continuing  slavishly  to  read  and  reread  the 
words.  The  determination  of  these  means,  of  course,  does  not  lie 

1  'How  Children  Study',  Archives  of  Psychology,  1909,  No.  12,  p.  70. 


102  RECITATION  AS   A   FACTOR   IN  MEMORIZING 

within  the  scope  of  this  study.  It  has  been  the  purpose  here  merely 
to  show  that  the  recitation  method  can  be  employed,  and  employed 
very  effectively,  by  pupils  from  the  third  grade  up. 

A  few  things  which  may  induce  the  pupil  to  rely  more  upon  recall 
will  occur  to  anyone.  Any  method  which  requires  the  summariza- 
tion of  the  facts  of  the  lesson  brings  recall  into  play,  since  in  such  a 
process  the  pupil  must  think  over  the  whole  material,  cull  out  the 
essentials,  and  state  in  his  own  words  the  main  points.  The  teacher 
should  encourage  the  pupil  to  react  to  the  lesson  in  this  way  and 
reward  him  for  successful  attempts.  Condensations  of  the  ideas  in 
written  form,  or  even  better,  if  possible,  summarizing  the  content 
of  the  lesson  mentally,  is  almost  certain  to  bring  rich  returns.  It 
brings  into  play  the  beneficial  factors  involved  in  recitation,  devel- 
ops power  to  distinguish  the  essentials  from  the  unessentials,  and 
may  develop  confidence  and  satisfaction  in  the  pupil,  since  it 
enables  him  to  be  more  certain  of  his  mastery  of  the  material.  The 
pupil  who  has  reasonable  assurance  that  he  has  the  lesson  in  hand 
can  approach  the  recitation  before  the  teacher  in  a  more  effective 
frame  of  mind. 

The  fact  that  recall  is  of  such  great  importance  in  learning  has 
a  significant  bearing  on  the  nature  of  the  recitation  period  in  the 
school-room.  As  Colvin  has  pointed  out:2  "The  fact  that  the  reci- 
tation, as  such,  is  largely  ignored  in  higher  grades  of  instruction  is 
doubtless  a  serious  pedagogical  defect,  which  can  be  remedied  only 
by  accustoming  the  student  to  practise  on  his  own  initiative  recall 
in  his  learning."  The  recitation  should  be  regarded  not  merely  as 
an  opportunity  afforded  the  teacher  to  find  out  what  the  pupils 
know,  how  hard  they  have  studied,  and  what  grade  they  should  be 
given.  Instead  of  an  inquisition  it  should  become  a  period  of  in- 
struction. It  should  offer  the  pupil  an  opportunity  to  recite  material 
he  has  previously  more  or  less  completely  mastered.  If  the  silent 
pupils  could  be  induced  to  recall  the  material  as  well  as  the  pupil 
who  is  orally  reciting  to  the  teacher,  the  period  could  become  a 
valuable  opportunity  for  review.  Its  most  admirable  function 
would  consist  in  affording  the  pupils  an  opportunity  to  discover 
where  their  knowledge  is  hazy,  inexact,  and  uncertain. 

In  addition,  the  teacher  should  make  of  the  recitation  a  means 
of  discovering  the  methods  of  studying  employed  by  the  pupils 
and  of  suggesting  improvements  in  that  respect.  The  unprepared 
student  should  not  simply  be  met  by  the  remarks:  "How  many 
times  did  you  read  your  lesson?"  and  "Go  read  it  again!"  but  more 
detailed  inquiry  into  the  cause  of  failure,  followed  by  more  valuable 
suggestions  with  regard  to  methods  of  study,  should  be  the  pro- 

2  The  Learning  Process,  New  York,  1913,  p.  165. 


RECITATION   AS   A   FACTOR   IN   MEMORIZING  1 03 

cedure.  In  a  word:  "It  should  be  remembered  that  instruction 
in  the  technique  of  learning  is  perhaps  as  important  as  instruction 
in  the  content  of  the  subjects  of  the  school  curriculum."3 

More  advanced  students  may  profit  by  the  knowledge  of  the 
indispensible  value  of  recitation.  The  college  student  is  confronted 
by  a  situation  in  which  the  'absorbing'  of  knowledge  seems  para- 
mount, and  where  reaction  is  too  little  required.  Listening  to 
lectures  and  reading  the  texts  require  most  of  his  time;  recitations 
are  few  and  far  between.  That  they  'read  lots  but  learn  little'  is 
a  stock  criticism,  and  it  is  indeed  not  seldom  true  that  the  college 
student  is  quite  as  ignorant  of  economical  methods  of  study  as  the 
grammar  school  pupil.  Recently  the  writer  heard  the  case  of  a 
college  student  who  came  to  a  professor  of  psychology  for  an  exam- 
ination of  what  he  believed  to  be  a  very  poor  memory.  The  student 
asserted  that  he  could  read  a  lesson  over  a  dozen  times  and  still  not 
know  it.  A  brief  examination  showed  his  memory  not  to  be  below 
par,  but  all  the  evidence  indicated  entirely  inadequate  methods  of 
study.  The  student  relied  upon  impression  with  little  or  no  effort 
at  expression;  recall  of  the  main  points  of  his  lesson  was  seldom 
tried.  Yet  for  the  college  student  who  is  so  seldom  called  to  account 
for  his  acquirements,  recitation  is  more  than  usually  essential.  Fre- 
quent reviews,  thinking  the  matter  over  by  one's  self,  writing  briefs 
of  the  main  points,  conversation  with  other  students,  and  the  like, 
are  valuable  because  they  throw  into  relief  the  portions  that  are 
hazy,  inexact,  and  confused  as  well  as  because  they  fix  more  clearly 
in  mind  the  material  that  is  rehearsed. 

Various  opinions  have  been  expressed  with  regard  to  methods 
of  taking  notes  during  lectures.4  Doubtless  the  method  must  be 
varied  somewhat  to  suit  the  material  that  is  presented,  but  the 
findings  in  the  present  study  suggest  a  method  which,  although 
seldom  employed,  should  bring  good  results.  Instead  of  making  of 
one's  self  a  mechanism  for  transferring  spoken  words  to  paper  with 
but  little  heed  to  the  meaning,  the  student  devotes  his  attention  to 
a  thorough  understanding  the  material  presented,  selecting  the 
important  points,  organizing  them  into  a  systematic  whole  as  the 
lecture  progresses,  and  for  the  most  part,  delaying  to  a  later  hour 
the  writing  of  the  notes.  Later  in  the  day  or  evening,  the  lecture 
is  rehearsed  and  an  outline  written  down  for  future  reference.  While 
some  disadvantages,  or  more  likely,  inconveniences,  of  such  a 
method  may  appear,  certain  advantages  of  an  important  nature 
are  obvious.  First  of  all,  the  student  may  develop  better  habits 

*  Colvin,  op.  cit.,  p.  178. 

*  This  subject  will  be  found  discussed  at  length  in  two  recent  books:   G.  V.  N.  Dearborn,  How 
to  Learn  Easily,  Boston,  1916,  Chapter  II,  and  Harry  D.  Kitson,  How  to  Use  Your  Mind,  Phila- 
delphia, 1916,  Chapter  II. 


104  RECITATION  AS  A  FACTOR   IN  MEMORIZING 

of  attention  during  the  lecture.  He  forces  himself  to  pick  out  the 
essentials,  to  grasp  the  relations  of  ideas  and  to  unify  and  organize 
the  material  presented.  The  will  to  remember,  which  Meumann  so 
strongly  emphasizes,  comes  into  play.  The  student  must  actively 
grasp  the  meaning  of  the  lecture  in  order  to  be  able  to  reproduce  it 
later.  Secondly,  the  writing  of  a  brief  of  the  lecture  at  a  later  hour 
combines  the  advantage  of  a  recitation,  which  the  copious  note- 
taker  too  seldom  practises,  with  the  well  known  benefits  to  be 
derived  from  the  distribution  of  learning  periods.5  A  few  students 
who  have  tried  this  method  speak  enthusiastically  of  its  effectiveness. 
Finally,  a  word  with  regard  to  a  more  technical  application  of  the 
results  of  this  study.  Individuals,  when  permitted  to  study  by 
their  'natural  method,'  were  found  to  employ  various  methods,  not 
only  for  different  materials,  but  for  lessons  of  the  same  material 
and  of  the  same  length,  at  different  times.6  The  quantitative 
results  consequently  vary  considerably,  according  to  whether  the 
subject  does  or  does  not  happen  to  employ  an  optimum  combination 
of  reading  and  recitation.  In  experimental  work  on  memory  and 
learning  in  which  successive  tests  under  constant  conditions  are 
required,  it  would  seem  to  be  an  important  precaution  to  specify 
the  time  at  which  the  learner  should  change  from  reading  to  at- 
tempted recall,  with  instructions  to  employ  thereafter  the  recitation 
method  until  learning  is  complete. 

5  See  Jost.  A.,  'Die  Assoziationfestigkeit  in  ihrer  Abhangigkeit  von  der  Verteilung  der  Wieder- 
holungen',  Zeitschrift  fiir  Psychologic,  1897,  14,  pp.  436-472,  or  Ebbinghaus,  H.,  Memory,  trans- 
lated by  H.  Ruger  and  C.  Bussenius,  New  York,  1913. 

8  But  little  of  the  actual  data  bearing  on  this  point  has  been  presented  in  this  paper.  For  the 
most  part,  such  data  were  obtained  from  the  practice  tests  conducted  preliminary  to  those  here 
presented. 


VITA 

Born  in  Red  Wing,  Minn.,  September  22,  1890.  Graduated 
from  primary  school  of  Fortuna,  California,  in  1905,  and  from 
Fortuna  High  School  in  1909.  Received  degree  of  B.L.  in  1914, 
and  M.A.  in  1915,  from  the  University  of  California.  Attended 
Columbia  University  during  the  academic  year  1916-1917.  Assistant 
in  Psychology  under  Professors  G.  M.  Stratton  and  Warner  Brown 
in  the  University  of  California  during  the  academic  years  1914-1915, 
and  1915-1916.  Assistant  in  Psychology  in  Columbia  University, 
1916-1917.  Major  work  at  Columbia  taken  with  Professors  J. 
McKeen  Cattell,  R.  S.  Woodworth,  E.  L.  Thorndike,  and  Dr. 
A.  T.  Poffenberger,  Jr. 


